crti^atatx^^. 


£.  ^i.oS-. 


t  lint  Mfuotogicut  J. 

PRINCETON,  N.  J.  ^^ 


Presented    by(5V,\"~^.  V<A-V>o  (:Avo>  S>  Soy^  S 


Dtziision 
Section  • 


V.  Z 


THE     KING 


THE     KINGDOM 


THE     KING 


AND 


THE     KIISTGDOM: 


A    STUDY   OF    THE   FOUR    OOSPFLS. 


'  To  the  present  age  is  ascribed  productiveness  and  changeableness  of  opinions,  and  at  the 
same  time  indifference  to  opinions.  But  that  cannot  arise  from  this  :  no  man  in  all  corrupted 
Europe  can  be  indifferent  to  truth  as  such,  for  it,  in  the  last  resort,  decides  upon  his  life  ;  but 
every  one  is  at  last  become  cold  and  shy  towards  the  erring  teachers  and  preachers  of  truth. 
Take  the  hardest  heart  and  brain  which  withers  away  in  any  capital  city,  and  only  give  him  the 
certainty  that  the  spirit  which  approaches  him  brings  down  from  eternity  the  key  which  opens 
and  shuts  the  so  weighty  gates  of  his  life-prison,  of  death,  and  of  heaven, — and  the  dried-up 
worldly  man,  .so  long  as  he  has  a  care  or  a  wish,  must  seek  for  a  truth  which  can  reveal  to  him 
that  spirit.' — Richter's  Levana. 

'  Hasten  the  time  when,  unfettered  by  sectarian  intolerance,  and  unawed  by  the  authority  of 
men,  the  Bible  shall  make  its  rightful  impression  upon  all ;  the  simple  and  obedient  readers 
thereof  calling  no  man  Master,  but  Christ  only.' — Dr.  Chalmers. 

'  I  speak  as  to  wise  men  ;  judge  ye  what  I  say.' — 1  Cor.  x.  15. 


SECOND     SERIES. 


New   York:    G.  P.   PUTNAM'S    SONS. 

London:    WILLIAMS    AND    NORGATE. 

1893. 


PEEFACE. 


Many  thoughtful  and  honest  minds  cannot  but  feel  that 
under  the  pressure  of  a  S3'stematised  theolog}--  the  gospel  of 
Christ  has  lost  much  of  its  freshness  and  power.  The  yevy 
reverence  paid  outwardly  to  Scripture  has  tended  towards  this 
result.  By  every  generation,  throughout  eighteen  centuries, 
the  divine  Truth  has  been  expounded,  weighed,  measured, 
attacked,  defended.  This  ceaseless  handling  could  scarcely 
fail  to  soil  and  dim  its  native  brightness.  The  atmosphere  of 
Christian  thought,  necessary  and  life-giving  though  it  be,  is 
always  more  or  less  weighted  with  foreign  particles,  emanations 
of  the  human  mind,  which  have  settled  into  a  thick  film  of 
dogmatic  teaching,  blurring  in  no  small  degree  the  truth  which 
lies  beneath.  There  is  surely  no  irreverence  in  the  touch 
which  would  brush  away  these  accretions  of  centuries. 

Probably  thej'^  whose  profession  it  is  to  preach  the  gospel 
are  of  all  men  least  likely,  in  the  ordinary  course  of  theological 
study,  to  accept  it  in  its  simplicity.  This  involves  no  dis- 
paragement of  their  learning  or  sincerity.  It  arises  from  the 
fact  that  they  are  bound  down  to  creeds  and  articles  of  religion, 
and  that  their  minds  have  been  nourished  and  developed  by 
the  ideas  of  spiritual  fathers  and  doctors  of  the  Church.  So 
it  comes  to  pass  that  their  interpretations  of  Scripture  are 
tinged  unconsciously  with  traditional  beliefs.  .  Their  exposi- 
tions of  the  New  Testament  have  a  definiteness  which  did  not 
exist  in  the  teaching  of  Jesus,  and  almost  every  parable  he 
spoke  has  had  impressed  upon  it  some  settled,  orthodox 
meaning. 

There  is  indeed  much  in  the  present  aspect  of  Christianity 
to  occasion  sorrow  and  perplexity.  On  the  one  side  are  clash- 
ing creeds  and  sects,  seeming  but  to  rend  and  disfigure  the 


vi  PREFACE. 

Truth  at  which  thej'  ckitch  ;  on  the  other  side  is  a  band  of 
honest,  I'earless  sceptics,  acute  in  the  exercise  of  criticism,  and 
so  self-confident  that  they  scruple  not  to  adopt  unhesitatingly 
the  conclusions  of  their  own  minds,  to  the  utter  rejection  of 
whatever  appears  miraculous  in  the  gospel  narratives.  Yet 
surely  the  compilers,  who  wrote  in  apostolic  times,  were  not 
destitute  of  common  sense  and  powers  of  judgment,  and  they 
must  have  had  infinitely  better  means  of  arriving  at  the  facts 
than  can  be  claimed  by  any  investigator  after  the  lapse  of 
eighteen  centuries. 

Disregarding  alike  dogmatic  interpretations  and  hostile 
criticisms,  it  is  no  small  comfort  to  turn  to  the  narratives 
themselves,  seeking  with  patient  study  their  true  import. 
IndejDendent  and  unprejudiced  enquiry  is  the  best  preservative 
against  the  two  extremes  of  believing  too  easily  or  doubting 
too  much.  To  do  full  justice  to  the  authors  of  the  Gospels  we 
must  take  their  work  as  it  were  fresh  from  their  own  hands. 
If  the  gospel  histories  are  worth  anything,  thej'^  will  be  self- 
luminous,  and  by  their  own  light  alone  should  they  be  inter- 
preted. If  in  the  main  points  and  circumstances  they  are  held 
to  be  not  reliable,  the}'  can  scarcely  be  deemed  worthy  of 
serious  stud3^ 

In  this  spu'it  the  following  investigation  has  been  conducted. 
Everything  is  sought  to  be  taken  as  it  stands,  without  abate- 
ment and  without  addition,  the  simple  object  being  to  arrive  at 
the  facts  intended  to  be  conveyed  by  the  evangelists,  and  to 
grasp  the  truths  and  doctrines  taught  by  Jesus. 

Not  scholarshij),  as  may  easily  be  seen,  but  only  earnestness 
of  thought  and  sincerity  of  purpose,  can  be  urged  in  favour  of 
this  work.  It  is  the  outcome  of  many  years  of  painstaking, 
loving  labour,  the  foundation  having  previously  been  laid  by  a 
similar  methodical  and  careful  review  of  each  of  the  four 
gospels  separately.  Not  until  that  apprenticeship  to  the  sub- 
ject was  ended,  did  the  author  venture  to  undertake  the  more 
important  task  of  combining  the  four  narratives,  pondering 
them  as  before  verse  by  verse,  phrase  by  phrase,  and  when 
necessary  word  by  word.     No  preconceived  ideas,  his  own  or 


PBEFACE.  vii 

of  others,  were  voluntarily  allowed  to  influence  the  investiga- 
tion ;  no  theories  or  doctrines  had  to  be  upheld,  no  reasonable 
conclusions  needed  to  be  shrunk  from  or  evaded,  no  fear  of 
adverse  judgment  or  criticism,  no  dread  of  blame,  no  hope  of 
praise  or  profit  have  been  at  work  to  interfere  with  the  expres- 
sion of  free  and  honest  thought.  That  fact  may  serve,  it  is 
hoped,  to  extenuate  any  apparently  undue  boldness  of  utter- 
ance :  if  the  writer  seems,  as  may  often  be  the  case,  to  under- 
value the  opinions  of  other  men,  it  is  not  out  of  disrespect,  but 
simply  because  truth  is  to  be  prized  above  everything ;  when- 
ever the  conclusions  arrived  at  are  strongly  stated,  it  is  because 
they  have  been  as  strongly  felt.  A  careful  reader  will  note  the 
gradual  growth  of  opinion  from  first  to  last.  The  true  nature 
of  Christ's  gospel,  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  and  of  real  dis- 
cipleship  to  Jesus,  must  needs  dawn  more  and  more,  here  a 
little  and  there  a  little,  on  the  mhid  which  sets  itself  to  the 
stud}"  of  his  divine  teaching. 


All  Scriptural  quotations  are  from  the  Revised  Version,  unless  otherwise 
stated. 

Frequent  references  will  be  found  to  the  following  works  : 
The  Holy   Bible.     Literally  and   idiomatically  translated   out   of  the 
original  languages.     By  Eobert  Young,  D.D.     A.  Fullarton  &  Co., 
Edinburgh,  Dublin  and  London. 

The  New  Testament.  With  various  readings  from  the  most  celebrated 
manuscripts  of  the  original  Greek  Text.  By  Constantino  Tischendorf. 
Tauchnitz  Edition.  Volume  1000.  Sampson  Low,  Son  &  Marston, 
London. 

The  New  Testament.  Translated  from  the  critical  text  of  Von  Tischen- 
dorf. By  Samuel  Davidson,  D.D.  Henry  King  &  Son,  London. 
{All  readings  and  renderings  mentioned  as  being  those  of  Von  Tischen- 
dorf are  from  this  worl,  the  renderings,  of  course,  being  by  Dr. 
Davidson.) 

The  New  Testament  for  English  Rkadees.  By  Henry  Alford,  D.D. 
Eivingtons,  London. 

The  Holy  Bible.  Translated  by  Samuel  Sharpe.  Williams  &  Norgate, 
London. 

The  Englishman's  Greek  New  Testament,  together  Avith  an  inter- 
linear Translation.     S.  Bagster  &  Sons,  Limited,  London. 

The  Englishman's  Concordance  of  the  Greek  New  Testament. 
S.  Bagster  &  Sons,  Limited,  London. 


THE 

KING    AND    THE    KINGDOM: 

A    STUDY    OF    THE    FOUE    GOSPELS. 
PART    II. 


The  enforced  sojourn  of  Jesus  in  Galilee  was  now  drawing  to  its 
close.  The  fourth  evangelist  states  plainly  the  reasons  which  led  to 
it.  '  And  after  these  things  Jesus  walked  in  Galilee  ;  for  he  would  ; 
not  walk  in  Jud^a,  because  the  Jews  sought  to  kill  him.'  From  the 
other  evangelists  we  have  learnt  what  happened  during  this  period, 
Avhich  was  full  of  incidents  ;  and  we  know  that  the  mind  of  Jesus 
was  then  busy  with  respect  to  the  establishment  and  practical 
working  of  that  '  assembly '  which  he  designed  to  found.  Alas  ! 
that  his  ideal  plan  should  never  yet  have  been  realised.  John's 
narrative  passes  over  in  silence  this  eventful  portion  of  the  career  of 
Jesus,  but  records  the  fact  that  his  prolonged  absence  from  Jud^a  at 
length  occasioned  comment,  and  that  some  officious  advice  was 
oflPered  to  him  by  his  relatives.  '  Xow  the  feast  of  the  Jews,  the 
feast  of  tabernacles,  was  at  hand.  His  brethren  therefore  said  unto 
him.  Depart  hence,  and  go  into  Judeea,  that  thy  disciples  also  may 
behold  the  works  which  thou  doest.'  He  had  previously  gained  a 
number  of  adherents  in  the  south  :  why  should  he  remain  in  the 
north  so  long  away  from  them  ?  There  could  be  no  better  oppor- 
tunity than  the  coming  feast  for  a  display  of  his  miraculous  powers. 
It  was  time,  and  the  proper  course,  that  any  claims  he  had  to  make, 
should  be  made  as  publicly  as  possible.  '  For  no  man  doeth  anything 
in  secret,  and  himself  seeketh  to  be  known  openly.'  Why  should  he 
work  in  a  corner,  when  he  could  do  so  before  the  eyes  of  all  men  't 
'  If  thou  doest  these  things,  manifest  thyself  to  the  world.'  This 
disclosure  for  a  moment  of  the  family  life  of  Jesus  is  somewhat 
staitling.  He  was  surrounded  by  grown-up  brothers  and  sisters,  who 
seem  to  have  been  quite  unable  to  comprehend  his  claims  and  his 
powers.  It  is  evident  that  his  mother  preserved  silence  with  respect 
to  his  birth,  leaving  the  divine  purposes  to  accomplish  themselves 
without  explanation  or  interference  on  her  part.  Her  husband  is 
never  mentioned  ;  possibly  he  had  passed  away  from  this  life.  AVe 
must  not  attribute  the  advice  now  tendered,  to  sarcasm  or  unkind- 
ness.  A  serious  argument  seems  to  have  been  intended,  to  which 
Jesus  replied  with  equal  seriousness.  The  advisers  do  not  seem  to 
have  troubled  themselves  to  ascertain  whether  the  reported  works  of 


2  THE    KlXa    AND    THE    KINGDOM:  [part  ii. 

Jesns  were  actually  true.  Supposing  them  to  be  so,  he  could  not  do 
a  wiser  thing  than  submit  them  to  the  test  of  public  criticism.  His 
brethren  themselves  were  not  only  unsympathetic,  but  unbelieving. 

"i"'>'  '  For  even  his  brethren  did  not  believe  on  him.'  There  is  nothing 
wonderful  in  that.  None  believed  in  him,  who  did  not  care  to  listen 
to  him,  who  were  not  moved  by  his  words,  or  who  had  not  enough  of 
faith  to  accept  facts  vouched  by  others,  or  of  interest  to  go  and  see 
and  judge  for  themselves. 

To  the  counsel  given  him  Jesus  replied  that  the  fitting  time  for  his 
departure  to  Judaea  had  not  arrived.  In  that  respect  his  brethren, 
were  freer  than  himself,  for  at  any  moment  they  could  go  without 
attracting  observation,  or  dread  of  consequences.  "With  him  it  was 
far  otherwise  :  he  was  not  only  widely  known,  but,  outside  the  circle 
of  his  own  disciples,   intensely  hated   on   account   of   his  uncom- 

„  '■'.  T  promising  denunciations  of  evil.  'Jesus  therefore  said  unto  them. 
My  time  is  not  yet  come  ;  but  your  time  is  always  ready.  The  world 
cannot  hate  you  ;  but  me  it  hateth,  because  I  testify  of  it,  that  its 
works  are  evil.'  Whenever  he  went,  it  would  be,  he  knew,  at  peril  of 
his  life.     His  brethren  must  go  up  without  him,  for  he  was  not  pre- 

„  N  pared  to  go  during  festival  time.  'Go  ye  up  unto  the  feast:  I  go 
not  up  yet  unto  this  feast.'  The  Revisers  note  that  '  many  ancient 
copies  omit  fjef  :^  the  Sinaitic,  which  is  the  most  ancient,  does  so. 
The  author  of  '  Gospel  Difficulties '  remarks  as  follows  :  '  In  his 
Commentary  on  Tatinn's  Harmony,  Ephrem  Syrus  has  the  following  : 
"  He  said  not,  I  do  not  ascend  io  this  feast  but  m  this  feast  (Non 
dixit,  non  ascendo  ad  festum  hoc  sed  in  festo  hoc)."  Taiian  there- 
fore early  in  the  second  century  apparently  knew  nothing  of  the 
reading  of  the  Received  Text  of  the  present  day  in  this  passage.  It 
is  of  course  very  easy  to  understand  how  likely  it  would  be  that  a 
copyist  might  think  that  "  to  this  feast  "  was  required  by  the  sense 
of  the  passage,  and  how  therefore,  if  Tatian's  reading  was  correct,  the 
spurious  reading  crept  in.'     Tischendorf  adopts  the  Sinaitic  reading : 

"  '  'I  go  not  up  unto  this  feast.'  Jesus  repeated  as  his  reason  :  'because 
my  time  is  not  yet  fulfilled.'  The  words  seem  to  ind  cate  a  fixed  time 
during  which  Jesus  was  debarred  from  undertaking  the  journey^ 
although  the  period  of  restraint  was  near  its  close.  He  had  confined 
his  ministrations  to  Galilee  owing  to  some  threat  against  his  life. 
The  fact  that  '  the  Jews  sought  to  kill  him  '  is  alluded  to  as  a  matter 
within  public  knowledge.  He  may  have  been  under  legal  penalties  : 
possibly  one  of  them  was  to  the  effect  that  if  within  a  certain  time 
he  revisited  Jerusalem  his  life  would  be  forfeit.  The  expression  used 
by  Jesus  seems  to  point  to  something  of  that  kind.  That  is  but  a 
supposition,  and  it  may  be  considered  more  probable  that  Jesus 
referred  to  the  fulfilment  of  an  appointed  period  in  his  destiuy,  as  in 
another  passage  where  the  same  xevh,  sinnpleroo,'' to  fill  coujpletely,' is 

111  e  -ii     Yi^Q^  .  '  ^u(j  it  came  to  pass  when  the  days  were  well-nigh  come  " 
(Gr.,were  being  fulfilled)  that  he  should  be  received  up,  he  steadfastly 
set  his  face  to  go  to  Jerusalem.'     Jesus  was  able  to  forecast  his  own 

-  31  destiny.  Elijah  and  Moses  had  been  with  him  on  the  mount '  and 
spake  of  his  decease  (or,  departure)  which  he  was  about  to  accom- 
plish at  Jeiusalem.'  Must  not  the  mind  of  Jesus  have  been  con- 
stantly locking  towards  that  final  crisis  ?  Though  he  might  rarely 
care  to  talk  about  it,  yet  what  more  uatural  than  that  some  reference 


TAKT  a..]  A    tiTUDY    OF    TILE    FOUlt    GOSl'ELH.  3 

to   it   should  be;  made  when  his  plans  and  course  of  action  were 
alluded  to  ? 

Having  resisted  his  brethren's  importunity,  and  aiTangcd  for  tlieir 
prior  departure,  Jesus  was  free  to  follow  the  course  dictated  by  his 
own  judgment.  He  gave  no  further  hint  of  his  intentions,  and 
cuntinued  his  residence  in  Galilee.  'And  having  said  these  things  ^juin.  !< 
unto  them,  he  abode  still  in  Galilee.'  The  Revisers  have  retained 
the  italicised  word  '  still,' which  is  dispensed  with  by  Tischendorf 
and  Young.  The  Revised  Version  continues  as  follows  :  '  Jkit  when  .,  ii» 
his  brethren  were  gone  up  unto  the  feast,  then  went  he  also  up  :'  the 
Revisers  retain  the  expression  'were  gone  up,' as  it  stands  in  the 
Authorised  Version  ;  but  Alford,  Young  and  Tis(;hendorf  replace  it 
by  '  went  up.'  This  alters  the  sense.  The  Authorised  and  Revised 
Versions  represent  the  departure  of  Jesus  as  deferred  until  his 
brethren  had  left,  which  accords  with  Luther's  version  ;  the  three 
other  translators  represent  the  departure  of  Jesus  as  simultaneous 
with  that  of  his  brethren,  if  even  he  did  not  go  with  them  :  '  But 
when  his  brethren  went  up  unto  the  feast,  then  lie  also  went  up.'  It 
would  seem  that  instead  of  preceding  Jesus  they  chose  to  delay  their 
departure.  That  is  on  the  supposition  that  the  word  '  yet '  is  to  be 
retained.  If,  however,  it  is  omitted,  it  seems  necessary  to  fall  back 
upon  Tatian's  reading  :  '  I  do  not  ascend  in  this  feast.'  The  verb 
here  used,  anabaino,  will  bear  that  sense  also,  as  in  the  passages  : 
'No  man  hatli  ascended  into  heaven,'  'I  ascend  unto  my  Father,' sjoim  13 
and  in  various  other  passages.  ao.ii.hn  i: 

Jesus  in  his  journey  sought  to  avoid  publicity,  for  it  is  added  : 
'  not  publicly,  but  as  it  were  in  secret.'  The  oldest  MS.  omits  'as  it  7  Jnim  10 
were,'  and  Tischendoi'f's  version  stands  :  '  not  openly,  but  in  secret.' 
There  was  no  attempt  at  concealment,  only  Jesus  travelled  incognito, 
as  a  private  traveller,  not  preaching  and  healing  on  his  way.  But 
when  he  reached  the  borders  of  Judaea,  his  incognito  was  dropped 
perforce  ;  crowds  resorted  to  him,  and  he  recommenced  his  work  of 
liealing  and  teaching.  Matthew  and  Mark  here  take  up  the  narra- 
tive. '  And  it  came  to  pass  when  Jesus  had  finished  these  words,  he  ^^  -^^t- 1- - 
departed  from  Galilee,  and  came  into  the  borders  of  Judsea  beyond 
Jordan  ;  and  great  multitudes  followed  him  ;  and  he  healed  them 
there.'  Mark  does  not  allude  to  the  cures,  but  notifies  the  fact  that 
Jesus  resumed  a  course  of  teaching.  '  And  he  arose  from  thence,  1*'  '^^"'''^  1 
and  cometh  into  the  borders  of  Judaea  and  beyond  Jordan  :  and 
multitudes  come  together  unto  him  again  ;  and,  as  he  w'hs  wont,  he 
taught  them  again.' 

Meantime  the  celebration  of  the  feast  of  tabernacles  had  begun  in 
Jerusalem,  and  enquiries  w^ere  being  made  as  to  his  whereabouts. 
'  The  Jews  therefore  sought  him  at  the  feast,  and  said.  Where  is  he  ?'  '"J"''"  i' 
Young  renders, '  Where  is  that  one  ? '  Alford, '  Where  is  tl\at  man  ? ' 
and  observes  :  '  The  Jews  are,  as  usual,  the  rulers,  as  distinguished 
from  the  multitudes.  Their  question  itself  {that  man)  shews  a  hostile 
spirit.'  The  public  mind  was  excited,  and  there  was  much  discussion 
and  difference  of  opinion  about  Jesus,  some  ui^holding  his  character, 
and  others  denouncing  him  as  a  demagogue.  '  And  there  was  much  „  1? 
murmuring  among  the  multitudes  concerning  him  :  some  said,  He 
is  a  good  man  ;  others  said,  Not  so,  but  he  leadeth  the  muhitniJe 

B    2 


4  THE    KIMr    AND    THE    KINGDOM:  [pakt  ii. 

astray.'  Xo  one  ventured  to  espouse  his  cause  in  public,  for  the 
vcng-eance  of  his  enemies  Avas  to  be  dreaded.  '  Howbeit  no  man 
spake  openly  (publicly — Young)  of  him  for  fear  of  the  Jews.' 
Alford  says  :  '  Here  ag-aiu  the  Jews  are  distinguished  from  the 
imdiiUides.'  This  distinction  drawn  by  Alford  will  not  l)ear  investi- 
gation. '  The  Jews '  are  constantly  referred  to  throughout  John's 
gospel,  but  not  in  the  sense  of  '  the  rulers,  as  distinguislied  from  the 
inultitudes.'  The  allusions  to  'the  Jews'  are  very  frequent:  in 
chapter  2,  three  times,  ch.  3,  twice,  ch.  4,  twice,  ch.  fj,  four  times, 
ch.  G,  twice,  ch.  7,  five  times,  ch.  8,  four  times,  ch.  9,  twice,  ch.  ](t, 
four  times,  ch.  11,  eight  times,  ch.  12,  twice,  ch,  i:-!,  once,  ch.  IH, 
six  times,  ch.  1!),  ten  times,  and  ch.  20,  once.  Under  ordinary 
circumstances,  an  author  describing  events  happening  in  his  own 
country  does  not  speak  of  his  countrymen  as  '  the  English,'  '  the 
French,'  and  so  on.  But  throughout  Judaea  there  was  a  mixed  popu- 
lation, Eomans,  Jews,  Gahleans,  Samaritans.  The  fact  l)rought  out 
clearly  in  John's  gospel  is  that  the  persecutions,  the  accusations,  tlie 
injustice  directed  against  Jesus,  which  culminated  in  his  death,  all 
proceeded  from  '  the  Jews.'  Writing  long  after  the  events  had 
happened,  at  a  distance  from  Palestine,  probably  for  foreigners,  there 
Avas  no  better  or  more  natural  way  of  showing  by  whom  these  things 
were  done,  than  that  adopted  in  the  fourth  gospel.  The  hostility  to 
Jesus  Avas  not  on  the  part  of  Eomans,  Samaritans  or  Galileans,  but 
of  the  Jews. 

For  two  or  three  days  the  ai^pearance  of  Jesus  at  the  feast  of  taber- 
nacles was  delayed,  but  in  the  midst  of  the  week  he  entered  the  temple 
and  taught  in  public.  '  But  when  it  was  now  the  midst  of  the  feast 
Jesus  went  up  into  the  temple,  and  taught.'  Tlie  ability  displayed 
in  his  teaching  excited  astonishment,  especially  as  he  had  received 
no  training  after  the  orthodox  fashion.  '  The  Jews  therefore  mar- 
velled, saying,  How  knoweth  this  man  letters,  having  never  learned  ? ' 
Alford  says  :  '  It  appears  to  haA'e  been  the  first  time  that  he  tai/f//if 
publicly  at  Jerusalem.'  The  question  as  to  the  source  of  his  kuow- 
ledge  appears  to  have  been  in  derogation  of  his  authority,  for  Jesus 
replied  to  the  criticism  by  assuring  them  that  he  stood  forth  as  a 
teacher  not  in  his  own  name  but  as  directly  commissioned  from 
another.  '  Jesus  therefore  answered  them,  and  said,  My  teaching  is 
not  mine,  but  his  that  sent  me.'  Those  among  his  listeners  Avho  were 
anxious  to  learn  and  do  the  will  of  God,  Avould  be  in  no  doubt  as  to 
the  character  of  his  teaching.  '  If  any  man  Avilleth  to  do  his  will,  he 
shall  know  of  the  teaching,  whether  it  be  of  God,  or  irJtetlicr  I  speak 
from  myself.'  A  teacher  having  his  own  ends  to  serve  would  be 
careful  about  his  own  reputation.  '  He  that  speaketh  from  himself 
seeketh  his  own  glory.'  But  the  teacher  Avho  could  throw  aside  self- 
interest,  caring  only  to  deliver  the  message  entrusted  to  him,  Avithout 
regard  to  consequences,  gave  thereby  unmistakable  evidence  of  truth 
and  rectitude.  '  But  he  that  seeketh  the  glory  of  him  that  sent  him, 
the  same  is  true,  and  no  unrighteousness  is  in  him.'  There  Avas  need 
for  some  bold  expounder  of  the  divine  Avill ;  for  although  they  had 
the  law  of  Moses,  there  AA'as  a  universal  disregard  of  that  law.  '  Did 
not  Moses  give  you  the  law,  and  yet  none  of  you  doeth  the  laAv  ? ' 
What  Avas  their  justification  for  aiming  at  his  life  ?  *  Why  seek  ye 
to  kill  me  ?  '     That  question  seems  to  have  astounded  the  listening 


I'AUT  II.]         J    HTUDY    OF    TIJK    b'OUll    Ho^l'ELS.  5 

crowd.  They  knew  ii()tliint>-  of  any  such  uttcnipt,  not  beuiG^  in  the 
counsel  of  those  who  had  plotted  the  death  of  Jesus.  His  asserti(jn 
was  attrihuted  (what  enemy  amonf:^  the  crowd  first  liroaclied  the 
idea?)  to  niorliid  s(df-deception.  'The  multitude  answered.  Thou  7. 
iiast  a  devil  ((ir.  demon):  who  seekcth  to  kill  thee  ?  '  Jesus  referred 
to  the  miracle  of  healing  performed  by  him  when  last  at  Jerus  deni, 
which  had  caused  the  hostility  and  persecution,  as  explained  pre- 
viously l)y  this  (!vangelist :  '  Therefore  did  the  Jews  persecute  .fesus,  r, . 
and  sought  to  slay  him,  because  he  had  done  these  things  on  the; 
sabbath  day.'  Taking  up  this  charge  of  sabbath-breaking  which 
had  been  made  against  him,  Jesus  now  argued  the  question.  There 
is  some  uncertainty  here  as  to  the  correct  rendering.  The  Autho- 
rised Version  is  as  follows  :  '  .lesus  answered  and  said  unto  them,  I 
haw  done  one  work,  and  ye  all  marvel.  Moses  therefore  gave  unto 
you  circumcision  ;  (not  because  it  is  of  Moses,  but  of  the  fathers).' 
Alford  explains  :  '  The  argument  seems  to  be,  Moses  on  this  acrouni 
gave  you  circumcision,  not  because  it  was  of  Moses,  but  of  the; 
fathers  ;  //■.,  it  is  no  part  of  the  law  of  Moses  properly  so  called.' 
That  would  apply  eepially  to  the  Revised  Version  :  '  Jesus  answered  7 , 
and  said  unto  them,  I  did  one  work,  and  ye  all  marvel.  For  this 
cause  hath  Moses  given  you  circumcision  (not  that  it  is  of  Moses  but 
of  the  fathers).'  But  the  Revisers  have  given  as  an  alternative 
reading  :  '  I  did  one  work  and  ye  all  marvel  because  of  this.  Moses 
hath  given  you  circumcision.'  This  alters  the  sense.  Tischendorf 
inserts  neither '  for  this  cause,'  nor  '  because  of  this,' following  the 
oldest  MS.,  which  omits  the  word  rendered  in  the  Authorised  Version 
•  therefore  : '  '  I  did  one  work,  and  ye  all  marvel.  IMoses  hath  given 
you  circumcision.'  The  general  astonishment  at  the  fact  of  Jesus 
having  chosen  or  ventured  to  heal  on  the  sabbath-day,  induced  him 
to  argue  out  the  question.  They  themselves  did  not  scruple  to 
circumcise  children  on  the  sabbath.  Why?  Because  they  found 
themselves  in  the  dilemma  of  either  breaking  the  lav,'  which  'ordains 
circumcision  on  the  eighth  day  '  (Alford),  or  of  breaking  the  sabbath 
to  the  extent  of  then  performing  the  ceremony  whenever  the  occasion 
demanded.  Why  then  should  they  blame  Jesus  for  having  exer- 
cised a  similar  freedom  of  judgment  ?  His  act  was,  to  say  the  least, 
as  necessary  and  beneficent  as  theirs.  They  did  it  for  the  child's 
sake  ;  he  did  it  for  the  man's  sake  ;  theirs  was  a  mere  ceremonial 
obser\ance  ;  his  was  an  actual,  visible,  tangiblo,  perfect  gift  of 
healing  :  '  and  on  the  sabbath  ye  circumcise  a  man.  If  a  man 
receiveth  circumcision  on  the  sabbath,  that  the  law  of  Moses  may 
not  be  broken  ;  are  ye  wroth  with  me,  because  I  made  a  nian  every 
whit  whole  on  the  sabbath  ?  '  If  they  presumed  to  claim  the  right 
of  judging  him  with  respect  to  that  matter,  let  them  not  regard  the 
action  from  a  superficial  point  of  view,  but  enter  into  the  merits  of 
the  question,  and  decide  upon  it  impartially  and  righteously.  '  Judge 
not  according  to  appearance,  but  judge  righteous  judgement.' 

In  proportion  to  the  boldness  of  Jesus  was  the  timidity  of  his 
adversaries.  They  had  launched  forth  their  sentence  of  condemna- 
tion and  death,  but  now  they  seemed  to  shrink  from  doing  anything 
against  him.  Their  evident  vacillation  of  purpose  was  the  subject 
of  comment  and  wonder  among  some  of  the  inhabitants  of  Jerusidem. 
Here  was  Jesus  speaking  in  public,  and  his  enemies  keeping  an  un- 


e  THE    KIJS'G    ANB    IHE    KINGDOM:  [part  ii. 

T.john L'5, 26  accoinitable  silence.  'Some  therefore  of  them  of  Jerusalem  said,  Is 
not  this  he  whom  they  seek  to  kill  ?  And  lo,  he  speaketh  openly, 
and  they  say  nothing  unto  him.'  Was  this  only  as  the  ominous  hush 
before  the  outburst  of  a  storm  ?  Or  might  it  not  be  possible  that 
the  opposing  rulers  had  after  all  become  convinced  that  Jesus  was  in 

„  -20  truth  the  expected  Messiah  of  their  nation?  'Can  it  be  that  the 
rulers  indeed  know  that  this  is  the  Christ  ? '  The  popular  opinion, 
having  no  authoritative  guidance  from  the  upper  classes,  swayed 
hither  and  thither,  as  one  view  or  another  of  the  subject  presented 
itself.  Some  ai'gued  that  because  they  knew  the  origin  of  Jesus,  he 
could  not  be  the  Messiah,  whom  tiiey  expected  to  come  in  some 

„  •2'J  sudden  and  mysterious  way.  '  Howbeit  we  know  this  man  whence 
he  is  :  but  when  the  Christ  cometh,  no  one  knoweth  whence  he  is.' 
Alford  states  that  Justin  Martyr  represents  Trypho  the  Jew  saying, 
'  Even  if  Christ  has  been  born  and  exists  somewhere,  he  is  unknown, 
and  is  not  even  conscious  of  his  own  identity,  until  Elias  shall  come 
and  anoint  him  and  make  him  manifest  to  all.'  The  discussion  of 
this  idea  being  notorious,  Jesus  ahuded  to  it  in  the  course  of  Ins 
teachings  in  the  temple.  He  told  the  multitude  that  they  were 
taking  up  only  a  halt-truth  :  it  was  true  that  they  knew  him  and 
his  home  ;  but  it  was  equally  true  that  he  had  been  sent  by  One 
having  a  real  existence,  of    whom,  however,  they   were   ignorant. 

„  L's  'Jesus  therefore  cried  in  the  temple,  teaching  and  saying.  Ye  both 
know  me,  and  knoAv  whence  I  am  ;  and  I  am  not  come  of  myself, 
but  he  that  sent  me  is  true,  whom  ye  know  not.'  On  the  word 
'  true  '  Alford  observes  :  '  The  nearest  English  Avord  would  be  7-eal  : 
but  this  w^ould  not  convey  the  meaning  perspicuously  to  the  ordinary 
mind  ;  perhaps  the  A.  V.  true  is  better,  provided  it  be  explained  to 
mean  realli/  existent,  not  truthful.''  Probably  Luther's  version  con- 
veys the  sense  of  the  original  :  '  Es  ist  ein  Wahrliaftiger,  der  mich 
gesandt  hat.' 

Their  uncertainty  and  unbelief  could  not  disturb  the  knowledge 

„  23  and  assurance  of  Jesus.  '  I  know  him  ;  because  I  am  from  him,  and 
he  sent  me.'  These  words  must  not  be  pressed  unduly.  The  evan- 
I  Joiiii  0  gelist  wrote  of  the  Baptist  :  '  There  came  a  man,  sent  from  God, 
Avhose  name  was  John.'  When  Jesus  used  the  same  expression  about 
himself,  it  should  carry  the  same  meaning.  Yet  the  saying,  '  I  know 
him,  because  I  am  from  him,'  may  bear  on  the  lips  of  Jesus  a  signi- 
fii-auce  higher  and  deeper  than  the  same  words  uttered  by  another. 
Both  the  ambassador  of  a  king  and  the  son  of  a  king  might  be  en- 
titled to  say,  '  I  know  him,  because  I  am  from  him,'  but  the  asser- 
tion would  mean  much  more  in  the  case  of  the  son  than  of  the 
ambassador. 

The  claim  thus  made  by  Jesus  to  a  direct  commission  from  God, 
was  deemed  sufficient  to  justify  his  apprehension,  and  his  enemies 
TJohnno     took  steps  with  that  object.     '  They  sought  therefore  to  take  him.' 
Yet  no  result  followed  :  his  capture  was  not  effected,  and  the  evan- 
gelist does  not  scruple  to  attribute  this  immunity  to  the  fact  that  bis 

„  30  destiny  was  foreordained  and  overruled.  '  And  no  man  laid  his  hand 
on  him,  because  his  hour  was  not  yet  come.'     So  among  the  people 

:.  :5i  Jesus  gained  many  adherents.  '  But  of  the  multitude  many  believed 
on  him.'  That  they  became  professed  disciples,  we  are  not  told  :  the 
question  with  them  was   argumentative,  a  matter  of  opinion  and 


PART  II.]         A    ^7'^7>F    OF    THE    FOUR    GOSFELH.  7 

jud,^raent  rather  than  of  life  aiicl  action.  'And  they  said,  When  the  r 
Clirisfc  shall  come,  will  he  do  more  sif>'iis  than  those  which  this  man 
hath  done  ?'  These  expressions  of  popnlar  approval  were  noted  hy 
the  Pharisees,  and  they  in  conjunction  with  the  chief  priests  decided 
to  seize  Jesus,  and  sent  out  ollicers  for  that  purpose.  '  Tlie  Pharisees 
hoard  the  multitude  murmuring-  these  things  concerning  him  ;  and 
the  chief  priests  and  the  J*harisees  sent  oHieers  to  take  him.'  Having 
knowledge  of  this,  .Tesus  warned  the  ])cople  that  his  time  with  them 
would  be  short,  lie  would  not  si)eak  of  his  death  as  death,  bin. 
would  have  them  regard  it  with  him  as  simply  his  going  back  to  Him 
from  whom  he  came,  whom  .Tesus  knew,  but  whom  they  knew  not, 
'  Jesus  therefore  said,  Yec  a  little  while  am  1  Avith  you,  and  I  gonnto 
him  that  sent  me.'  A  time  would  come  when  they  would  be  anxious 
for  his  presence,  and  would  search  for  him  without  success.  'Ye 
shall  seek  me,  and  shall  not  find  me.'  Between  him  and  them  there 
must  be  an  impassable  gulf  of  separation  :  '  and  where  I  am,  ye  cannot 
come.'  In  connection  witli  the  earthly  life  of  Jesus,  we  know  of 
nothing  to  explain  these  words.  His  mind  was  dwelling  on  his 
return  to  his  heavenly  Father,  and  his  saying  must  refer  to  coming- 
experiences  in  the  life  beyond  the  present.  To  the  Jews  it  was  alto- 
gether enigmatical  :  he  was  about  to  go  somewhere  away  from  them. 
AVhither  ?  '  The  Jews  therefore  said  among  themselves,  Whither 
will  this  man  go  that  we  shall  not  find  him  ? '  AVas  he  about  to 
transfer  himself  and  his  teaching  to  a  heathen  land  and  people  ? 
'  Will  he  go  unto  the  Dispersion  among  (Gr.  of)  the  Greeks,  and 
teach  the  Greeks  ? '  Did  he  intend  to  quit  Judsea,  and  in  some 
foreign  country  indoctrinate  all  who  would  listen  to  him,  both  Jews 
and  Gentiles  ?  Alford  says  :  '  Their  interest  in  this  hypothesis, 
that  He  was  going  to  the  dispersed  among  the  Greeks,  is,  to  convey 
contempt  and  mockery.'  Of  that  we  can  scarcely  feel  sure,  inasmuch 
as  the  suggestion  was  made 'among  themselves,' not  addressed  to 
Jesus,  and  the  idea  was  at  once  dismissed  as  improbable,  so  that  his 
saying  still  remained  inexplicable.  '  What  is  this  word  that  he 
said.  Ye  shall  seek  me,  and  shall  not  find  me  :  and  where  I  am,  ye 
cannot  come  ?  ' 

On  the  third  or  fourth  day  after  his  arrival  at  Jerusalem,  .Jesus 
adopted  a  very  decided  course  of  action,  challenging  attention  by 
the  utterance  in  public  of  most  emphatic  declarations  respecting  him- 
self and  his  influence  upon  others.  It  was  the  last  and  great  day  of 
the  feast,  and  .Tesus  stood  forth  before  the  assembled  crowds,  pro- 
claiming in  their  ears  the  nature  of  the  gift  he  was  able  to  promise  to 
his  followers.  '  Now  on  the  last  day,  the  great  day  of  the  feast,  Jesus 
stood  and  cried,  saying,  If  any  man  thirst;  let  him  come  unto  me 
and  drink.  He  that  believeth  on  me,  as  the  scripture  hath  said,  out 
of  his  belly  shall  flow  rivers  of  living  water.'  Here  is  the  same  figure 
of  speech  as  was  adopted  in  the  discourse  with  the  woman  of  Hamaria, 
the  same  tone  of  thought,  method  of  persuasion,  and  promised  benefit. 
Standing  forward  as  the  Messiah  of  liis  people,  Jesus  utters  no  call  to 
arms,  no  word  about  political  rights  or  national  i'reedom.  His  pro- 
mises are  not  general,  but  only  to  individual  and  willing  hearers,  to 
such  as  possessed  a  burning  thirst,  were  conscious  of  an  inward  want, 
and  were  disposed  to  come  to  him  for  teaching  and  relief  :  '  If  any 
man  thirst,  let  him  come  unto  me,  and  drink.'    In  such  an  invitation 


8  THE    KING    AND    THE    KINCWOM :  [part  ii. 

there  was  nothiug  revolutionary,  no '  leading  astray '  of  the  mnltitiide  : 
the  promise  is  a  grand  one,  but  symbolical,  and  would  sound  to  many 
far-fetched  and  visionary.  This  is  no  demagogue  inciting  the  multi- 
tude, but  an  earnest  high-minded  Teacher  seeking  to  impart  spiritual 
blessings.  And  his  promise  is  conditional  :  '  He  that  believeth  on 
me.'  He  claims  unreserved  confidence,  boundless  trust ;  and  to  such 
disciples  he  guarantees  an  inward,  self-evolved  satisfaction  of  their 
highest  aspirations  ;  nothing  of  worldly  glory,  no  gratification  of 
earthly  ambition,  no  shout  of  victory,  no  song  of  triumph  :  simply 
the  personal  realisation  of  a  figurative  prophecy  :  '  as  the  scripture 
hath  said,  out  of  his  belly  shall  flow  rivers  of  living  water.'  Alford 
says  :  '  We  look  in  vain  for  such  a  text  in  the  Old  Testament.'  But 
in  several  places  the  flowing  out  of  water  is  alluded  to,  as  :  '  And  it 
shall  come  to  pass  in  that  day,  that  living  water  shall  go  out  from 
Jerusalem.'  Jesus  seems  to  have  chosen  a  similar  expression  as  best 
suited  to  cou-^'ey  his  idea  of  a  pure  and  perpetual  supply  of  that  for 
which  human  nature  thirsts. 

The  evangelist  here  inserts  the  following  explanation  :  '  But  this 
spake  he  of  the  Spirit,  which  they  that  believed  on  him  were  to 
receive  :  for  the  Spirit  Avas  not  yet  (jivcn  ,-  because  Jesus  was  not  yet 
glorified.'  The  Revisers,  following  the  oldest  MS.,  have  omitted 
'  Holy '  before  '  Spirit,'  but  they  have  retained  the  italicised  word 
'  given  '  after  '  yet.'  The  word  '  given '  appears  in  the  text  of  the 
Vatican  MS.  Alford  observes  :  '  The  additions  "  given,"  "  upon 
them,"  as  some  authorities  read,  and  the  like,  are  all  put  in  ))y  way 
of  explanation,  to  avoid  a  misunderstanding  which  no  intelligent 
readei-  could  fall  into.  Chrysostom  writes  :  "  The  evangelist  says. 
For  the  Holy  Ghost  was  not  yet,  i.e.,  was  not  yet  given,  because 
Jesus  was  not  yet  glorified  :  meaning  by  the  Glory,  the  Cross."  ^ 
Tischendorf  has  :  '  But  this  spake  he  of  the  Spirit,  which  they 
that  believe  on  him  were  about  to  receive  ;  for  the  Spirit  was  not  yet, 
])ecause  Jesus  was  not  yet  glorified.'  Young  is  to  the  same  efi"ect : 
'  i>ut  this  he  said  concerning  the  Spirit,  which  those  believing  in 
him  were  about  to  receive  ;  for  as  yet  the  Holy  Spirit  was  not, 
because  Jesus  was  not  yet  glorified.'  Jesus  alluded  to  a  spiritual  in- 
fluence about  to  be  imparted  to  his  disciples  ;  it  had  not  yet  been 
bestowed,  nor  could  it  be  until  a  further  point  had  l)eeu  reached  in 
the  career  of  Jesus.  We  must  wait  for  more  light  on  this  sul)jcct, 
observing  only  that  Chrysostom's  idea  that  the  '  glory '  means  the. 
'  cross'  cannot  be  accepted  without  evidence.  Alford  remarks  :  'If 
is  obvious  that  the  word  '  was  '  cannot  refer  to  the  esseniial  exisfeacp 
of  the  Holy  Spirit.  .  .  The  word  implied  is  not  exactly  "given,"  but 
rather  "  working,"  or  some  similar  word  :  was  not — had  not  come  in  : 
the  dispensation  of  the  Spirit  was  not  yet.'  It  is  easier  to  understand 
the  words  of  Jesus  than  the  explanation  of  the  evangelist,  although 
liis  interpretation  of  them  must  be  accepted  as  authoritative. 

The  effect  of  this  declaration  of  Jesus  varied  according  to  the  dis- 
])Ositions  of  the  hearers.  Some  of  them  expressed  the  conviction 
that  he  was  the  long-expected  prophet.  '■  ^Some  of  the  multitude 
therefore,  when  they  heard  these  words,  said,  This  is  of  a  truth  the 
prophet.'  The  Eevisers,  following  the  oldest  ]\rS.,  have  altered 
'  many'  to  '  some  '  and  '  this  saying  '  to  '  these  words.'  Alford  ex- 
2)lains  :  '  From  the  prophecy  of  Moses,  Deut.  xviii.  15,  18,  the  Jews 


I'ART  II. J         A    STUDY    OF    THE    FOl'll    GOSI'Fl.S.  U 

expected  some  particular  prophet  to  arise,  distinct  from  the  Messiah, 
whose  cominj;  was,  like  that  oi"  EHas,  intimately  connected  with  that 
of  the  Messiah  Himself.'  Others  discerned  in  .lesus  sufficient  to 
waiTant  the  belief  that  he  was  actually  the  Messiah.  '  Others  said,  7.)"ini  *i 
This  is  the  Christ.'  But  against  the  possibility  of  that,  some  raised 
the  argument  tiiat  the  Messiah  could  not  be  expected  to  come  from  a 
place  so  far  outside  of  ffudtea  as  CJalilee.  'But  some  said,  What,  doth  ,,  n 
the  Christ  come  out  of  Galilee  ?  '  On  the  contrary,  the  Scriptures  had 
h (retold  that  he  would  be  a  descendant  of  David,  and  from  ]kth- 
lehem,  David's  native  village.  'Hath  not  the  scripture  said  that  ■•  ••- 
the  Christ  cometh  of  the  seed  of  Da\id,  and  from  Bethlehem, 
the  village  where  David  was  ? '  This  question  shows  a  total 
ignorance  of  the  opening  history  of  Jesus  as  recorded  l)y  Luke. 
E\en  if  the  events  which  happened  thirty  years  ago  were  not  entirely 
forgotten,  there  was  nothing  within  public  knowledge  to  identify 
Jesus  in  connection  with  them.  In  face  of  Herod's  slaughter,  the 
object  had  been  concealment.  That  had  been  secured  by  the  flight 
to  Egypt.  Even  after  Herod's  death  Joseph  had  feared  to  revisit 
Judffia,  and,  as  a  matter  of  course,  in  Galilee  no  hint  would  be  given 
likely  to  lead  to  the  identification  of  Jesus.  It  is  quite  possible,  nay, 
it  is  most  reasonable  to  suppose  that  his  Mother's  mind  must  have 
Iteen  haunted  by  a  constant  dread  lest  their  secret  should  be  exposed, 
and  the  life  of  Jesus  thereby  jeopardised.  The  enemies  who  were  now 
seeking  his  life  would  have  been  only  too  glad  to  know  that  he  was 
the  child  whom  Herod  had  sought  to  slay  because  he  had  been  wor- 
shipped by  the  ]\[agi  as  the  King  of  the  Jews.  How  wonderful  had 
been  the  workings  of  divine  Providence  !  Notwithstanding  the  entire 
silence  which  had  been  maintained  respecting  the  high  origin  and 
destiny  of  Jesus,  the  (juestiou  of  his  Messiahsbip  was  now  coming  to 
the  front.  It  was  earnestly  debated  by  the  multitude.  Doubtless 
the  leisure  of  the  festival  time  afforded ^a  fit  opportunity  for  consider- 
ing such  a  matter.  Two  parties  were  formed,  one  in  favour  of  Jesus 
ami  one  against  him.  '  So  there  arose  a  division  in  the  multitude  •■  '•• 
because  of  him.'  Some  of  his  opponents  w'ere  desirous  to  seize  him, 
although  they  did  not  actually  venture  to  do  so.  '  And  some  of  them  ..  ^i 
would  have  taken  him  ;  Imt  no  man  laid  hands  ou  him.'  Although 
Jesus  stood  in  great  danger,  the  very  officers  who  had  been  sent  to 
apprehend  him  held  their  hands  ;  they  returned  without  the  expected 
prisoner,  to  the  astonishment  of  tho  Pharisees,  and  in  reply  to  the 
enquiry  why  they  had  failed  to  fulfil  their  mission,  the  officers  could 
only  say  that  the  discourses  of  Jesus  were  not  like  those  of  any  other 
man  :  he  was  no  ordinary  liaranguer  of  a  mob,  nor  could  they  venture 
upon  the  profanation  of  attempting  to  silence  a  teacher  so  unparal- 
leled. •  The  officers  therefore  came  to  the  chief  priests  and  Pharisees  ; 
and  they  said  unto  them,  Why  did  ye  not  bring  him  ?  The  officers 
answered,  Never  man  so  spake.'  So  the  Pharisees  were  forced  to 
argue  against  the  scruples  of  their  own  emissaries.  This  they  did  in 
a  tone  of  angry,  bitter  scorn.  '  The  Pharisees  therefore  answered  ..  -tT 
them,  Are  ye  also  led  astray  ?  '  Could  they  point  to  a  single  man  of 
reputation  or  learning  who  had  become  a  disciple  of  Jesus  ?  '  Hath  "  -'^ 
any  of  the  rulers  believed  on  him,  or  of  the  Pharisees  ?  '  Tischendorf 
renders,* '  any  one  of  the  rulers,'  and  the  Revisers  have  replaced  '  have ' 

*  The  'renderings'  alluded  to  as  of  Tischendorf  arc  those  of  Dr.  Davidson. 


i:>,  ■)(". 


10  THE    KING    AND    THE    KINGDOM:  [part  ir. 

by  '  hath.'  The  verdict  of  the  populace  in  favour  of  Jesus  was  to  Le 
attributed  to  a  judicial  blindness  due  to  their  ignorance  of  the  law. 
7Joiin49  'But  this  multitude  which  knoweth  not  the  law  are  accursed.' 
Alford  notes  :  '  mvJiiiude  is  here  a  word  of  contempt — rahhle.''  One 
voice  amono'  the  Pharisets,  however,  was  raised  on  behalf  of  Jesus. 
In  the  Authorised  Version  we  read:  '  Nicoderaus  saith  unto  them, 
(he  that  came  to  Jesus  by  night,  being  one  of  them.')  Tischendorf 
has  simply  :  'Nicodemus  said  unto  them,  being  one  of  them,'  which 
is  the  reading  of  the  oldest  MS.  Alford  notes  :  '  The  reading  here 
varies  very  much  :  some  ancient  copies  omitting  "  by  night,"  others 
inserting  it  in  ditierent  positions.'  The  Eevisers  omit  '  by  night,' 
but   for  some  unexplained   reason   insert  instead  thereof  the  word 

„  00  'before.'  'Nicodemus  saith  unto  them  (he  that  came  to  him  before, 
being  one  of  them).'  If  the  multitude  did  not  know  the  law,  let  the 
Pharisees  beware  of  disregarding  it.  Did  the  law  justify  the  passing 
of  judgment  upon  Jesus,  without  first  hearing  his  defence  and  taking 

„  51  evidence  with  respect  to  his  actions  ?  'Doth  our  law  judge  a  man, 
except  it  first  hear  from  himsi'lfand  know  what  he  doeth  ?  '  Young 
and  Tischendorf  render  literally  'the  man,'  not  'a  man.'  This 
pertinent   and   searching   question  was   answered   only   by   a   con- 

„  '>i  temptuous  sarcasm.  '  They  answered  and  said  unto  him,  Art  thou 
also  of  Galilee  ?  '  Did  he  expect  the  light  and  learning  of  Jerusalem 
to  be  overborne  by  the  uncultured  ideas  of  a  Galilean  ?  Let  Nico- 
demus take  up  the  investigation  of  that  question,  and  lie  would  soon 
become  convinced  that  no  Teacher  worthy  of  the  name  could  spring 

„  hi  out  of  such  a  locality  and  such  surroundings,  '  Search  and  see  that 
out  of  Galilee  ariseth  no  prophet.' 

This  feast  of  tabernacles  was  not  the  first  occasion  on  which  the 
public  voice  in  Jerusalem  had  made  irself  heard  in  favour  of  Jesus. 
At  a  previous  passover-festival  many  disciples  had  been  gained,  and 
an  enthusiasm  manifested  of  which  Jesus  declined  to  avail  himself. 
The  incident  is  recorded  only  by  the  fourth  evangelist,  and,  although 
it  occurs  in  the  earlier  portion  of  the  narrative,  he  gives  no  indica- 
tion to  what  period  of  the  career  of  Jesus  it  refers,  simply  placing 
together  the  events  of  two  passovers  and  giving  precedence  to  the 
last  on  account  of  '  the  cleansing  of  the  temple.'  The  other  evan- 
gelists place  that  event  towards  the  end  of  the  ministry  of  Jesus,  and 
as  John  does  not  specify  the  time  there  is  no  justification  for  assum- 
ing that  the  cleansing  of  the  temple  occurred  twice,  especially  in  face 
of  the  obvious  similarity  in  the  details.  Neither  does  the  evangelist 
specify  any  time  in  what  follows,  but  simply  states  that  it  was  at 
■z  Joim  2:3  Jerusalem  during  a  passover.  '  Now  when  he  was  at  Jerusalem  at 
the  passover,  during  the  feast,  many  believed  on  his  name,  beholding 
his  signs  which  he  did.'  The  Authorised  Version  continues :  'but 
Jesus  did  not  commit  himself  unto  them.'  This  conveys  the  idea 
of  a  willingness  on  their  part  to  espouse  and  promote  the  cause  of 
Jesus  in  some  fashion  of  their  own  choosing,  but  from  which  he  held 
aloof.     The  Revised  Version  (agreeing  with  Tischendorf,  Young  and 

„  24  Alford)  reads  :  '  But  Jesus  did  not  trust  himself  unto  them.'  Alford 
explains  that  '  in  the  original,  the  same  verb  is  used  for  believed  in 
verse  23,  and  for  trust  in  this  verse.'  So  the  meaning  must  be  that 
he  did  not  feel  that  confidence  in  them  which  they  showed  in  him. 
The  evangelist  explains  that  he  possessed  a  perfect  intuition  in  judg- 
ing the  characters  of  men  generally,  which  made  him  independent  of 


1-AUT  II.]         A    STUDY    OF    THE    FOUR    GOSPELS.  11 

l)rivute  information  :  he  was  able  to  gauge  the  disposition  of  every 
man  he  met  :  '  for  that  he  knew  all  men,  and  because  he  needed  lujt  'j.i..iin-ii 
that  any  one  should  bear  witness  concerning  man  (or,  a  man)  ;  I'oi- 
he  himself  knew  what  was  in  man  (or,  the  man).'  It  is  most  reason- 
able to  suppose  that  the  opinion  thus  expressed  was  based  upon  th(! 
evangelist's  own  observation.  Jesus  frequently  exhibited  this  power : 
as  when  he  saw  Nathanael  coming  to  him  and  pronounced  him  an 
Israelite  indeed  without  guile  ;  when  he  surnamed  Peter,  '  Kock ' ; 
when  he  termed  liim  '  Satan  ' ;  when  he  surnamed  two  disciples  '  Sons 
of  thunder';  when  he  said  to  Judas,  'That  thou  doest,  do  quickly'; 
when  he  perceived  the  craftiness  and  hardness  of  lieart  of  scribes  and 
Pharisees.  But  Alford  argues  :  '  Nothing  less  than  divine  Icnoivledge 
is  here  set  forth  ;  the  words  are  even  stronger  than  if  the  reference 
had  been  to  the  persons  here  mentioned  :  as  the  text  now  stands,  it 
asserts  an  entire  knowledge  of  all  that  is  in  all  men.'  If  such  an 
assertion  be  intended,  it  is  simply  made  by  the  evangelist,  and  can 
be  worth  no  more  than  the  opinion  of  any  other  man.  How 
could  the  writer  of  this  gospel  know  that  Jesus  knew  all  that  was 
in  the  heart  of  every  man  living  ?  The  supposition  is  monstrous, 
incredible. 

The  visit  of  iSTicodemus  already  alluded  to  Avould  seem  to  have 
been  made  at  that  passover-time  when  the  minds  of  the  multitude 
were  inclined  towards  Jesus,  for  the  account  of  the  visit  immediaLely 
follows.  Nicodemus  was  not  only  a  Pharisee,  but  a  leading  man 
among  the  Jews.  '  Now  there  was  a  man  of  the  Pharisees,  named  s.^iimi 
Nicodemus,  a  ruler  of  the  Jews.'  Under  cover  of  the  night  he  paid 
a  visit  to  Jesus.  '  The  same  came  unto  him  by  night.'  Following  ..  •_• 
the  three  oldest  MSS.  the  Revisers  have  replaced  the  word  '  Jesus ' 
by  '  him.'  This  alteration  makes  more  apj^arent  the  connection  with 
the  preceding  account  of  the  passover.  We  can  only  conjecture  the 
reason  for  choosing  the  night  time.  Probably  one  motive  was 
secrecy  ;  probably  the  whole  of  the  day  was  occupied  by  Jesus  in 
teaching  or  otherwise,  and  the  private  conference  sought  by  Nico- 
demus was  deemed  important  enough  to  require  a  fixed  appointment 
when  there  would  be  ample  leisure  and  no  fear  of  interruption. 
Nicodemus  opened  the  conversation  with  courtesy  and  candour.  He 
addressed  Jesus  by  the  recognised  title  '  Teacher,'  and  he  scrupled 
not  to  admit  that  the  conviction  of  Jesus'  divine  mission  had  l>een 
forced  upon  the  minds  of  himself  and  others  of  his  class  :  'and  said  ,.  -i 
to  him,  liabbi,  we  know  that  thou  art  a  teacher  come  from  God  :  for 
no  man  can  do  these  signs  that  thou  doest,  except  God  be  with  him.' 
Young's  rendering  in  the  past  tense,  '  Rabbi,  we  have  known  '  seems 
to  bring  out  the  fact  that  the  matter  had  been  considered  and  decided. 
It  may  be  inferred  from  the  use  of  the  word  '  we '  that  Nicodemus 
came  as  a  delegate  :  had  this  been  merely  his  private  opinion,  he 
would  not  so  have  expressed  it  as  to  compromise  others  of  his  class. 
The  Pharisees  were  constrained  to  admit  the  reality  of  the  miracles 
wrought  by  Jesus,  and  that  they  could  only  be  performed  by  the 
favour  and  power  of  God  ;  therefore  his  teaching  must  be  divinely 
authorised.  Either  the  conversation  turned  naturally  to  questions 
relating  to  the  kingdom  of  God,  and  the  record  is  fragmentary,  or 
Jesus  at  once  dehberately  directed  his  discourse  to  that  subject.  He 
f^tartled  Nicodemus  by  making  a  very  solemn  and  emphatic  assertion. 


12  THE    KING   AND    THE    KINGDOM:  [pakt  ii. 

'  Jesus  answered  and  said  unto  him,  Yerily,  verily,  I  say  unto  thee, 
Except  a  man  be  born  anew  (^or.  from  above),  he  cannot  see  the  king- 
dom of  God.'  The  Revisers  have  replaced  the  word  '  again '  by 
'anew,'  with  the  alternative  rendering  'from  above,'  which  is  adopted 
by  Tischendorf.  Young  renders  :  '  If  any  one  be  not  born  from 
above,  he  is  unable  to  see  the  reign  of  God.'  There  must  be  a  fresh, 
super-mundane,  heavenly  birth,  before  any  man  can  see  the  reign  of 
God,  discern  the  mode  and  manner  of  the  divine  rulership.  Nico- 
demus  was  staggered  by  this  declaration.  It  was  too  positive  and 
earnest  to  be  regarded  as  a  mere  figure  of  speech.  It  was  evident  to 
his  mind  that  Jesus  was  describing  some  natural  fact  of  human  ex- 
istence, which  was  as  much  a  reality  as  being  born  into  the  world. 
But  how  could  anything  of  that  kind  happen  to  a  man  a  second 
time  ?  '  Nicodemus  saith  unto  him,  How  can  a  man  be  born  when 
he  is  old  ?  can  he  enter  a  second  time  into  his  mother's  womb,  and 
be  born  ? '  Jesus  explained  that  the  birth  he  alluded  to  was  by  the 
combination  of  the  element  of  water  with  spirit.  'Jesus  answered. 
Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  thee,  Except  a  man  be  born  of  water  and 
the  Spirit,  he  cannot  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God.'  The  Sinaitic 
MS.  reads,  '  he  cannot  see  the  kingdom  of  heaven.'  Tischendorf  has, 
'  he  cannot  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven,'  and  he  substitutes 
'  one '  for  the  words  '  a  man.'  The  English  translators  by  beginning 
the  word  'spirit'  with  a  capital  letter,  and  introducing  before  it  the 
definite  article,  incorporate  into  the  text  an  idea  of  their  own.  The 
true  meaning  seems  to  be  that  the  birth  alluded  to  is  by  a  compound- 
ing of  water  with  spirit.  This  is  confirmed  by  the  words  which 
follow,  in  which  Jesus  contrasts  the  nature  of  the  fi  st  birth  and  of 
the  second  birth,  and  distinguishes  between  the  two.  '  That  which  is 
born  of  the  flesh  is  flesh  ;  and  that  which  is  born  of  the  spirit  is 
spirit.'  How  can  translators  be  justified  in  placing  a  capital  to  the 
first  word  '  Spirit,'  and  not  to  the  second  word  '  spirit,'  which  follows 
immediately  ?  The  Authorised  Version  led  the  way,  and  the  Re- 
visers, Tischendorf,  Young  and  Alford  have  followed  suit.  Luther's 
version  does  not  give  the  idea  of  a  person  to  the  word  spirit.  '  Was 
vom  Fleisch  geboren  wird,  das  ist  Fleisch  ;  und  was  vom  Gcist 
geboren  wird,  das  ist  Geist.'  The  translation  of  Samuel  Sharpe  brings 
the  true  meaning  of  the  original  clearly  to  our  view  :  '  Unless  a  man 
l)e  born  of  water  and  spirit,  he  cannot  enter  the  kingdom  of  God. 
What  is  born  of  the  flesh,  is  flesh,  and  what  is  born  of  the  spirit  is 
spirit.'  The  earthly  life  is  a  fleshly  life  ;  the  heavenly  life  is  a 
spiritual  life  ;  the  lower  nature  is  flesh  and  blood,  the  higher  natur(^ 
is  water  and  spirit.  The  apostle  Paul  was  cognizant  of  this  truth. 
He  wrote  :  '  If  there  is  a  natural  body,  there  is  also  a  spiritual  hodij. 
'  So  also  it  is  written,  The  first  man  Adam  became  a  living  soul.  The 
last  Adam  became  a  life-giving  spirit.  Howbeit  that  is  not  first  which 
is  spiritual,  but  that  which  is  natural ;  then  that  which  is  spiritual. 
The  first  man  is  of  (out  of — Young)  the  earth,  earthy  :  the  second 
man  is  of  (out  of— Young)  heaven.  As  is  the  earthy,  such  are  they 
also  that  are  earthy  :  and  as  is  the  heavenly,  such  are  they  also  that 
are  heavenly.  And  as  we  have  borne  the  image  of  the  earthy,  we 
shall  (or,  let  us)  also  bear  the  image  of  the  heavenly.  Now  this  I 
say,  brethren,  that  flesh  and  blood  cannot  inherit  the  kingdom  of 
God.'     Is  not  that  precisely  to  the  same  effect  as  what  Jesus  said  to 


I'AKT  II. J         A    STUDY    OF    THE    t'ol'i:    GOSJ'ELS.  13 

Nicodemus  ?  The  fact  must  not  l)e  rejected  or  even -wondered  at 
because  it  is  inscrutable.  '  .Marvel  not  tliat  I  said  unto  thee,  Ye  must .-; 
be  born  anew  (or,  from  above).'  None  can  trace  the  course  of  wind 
or  spirit,  thoui^h  our  ears  catch  tlie  sound  and  we  are  certain  oi'  tlie 
unseen  reality.  Tliose  wlio  have  attained  tlie  new,  spiritual  birth, 
are  equally  invisible,  intangible,  untraceable.  '  The  wind  bloweth 
(or,  the  Spirit  breatheth)  where  it  listeth,  and  thou  hearest  the  voice 
thereof,  but  kuowest  not  whence  it  cometh,  and  whither  it  goeth  :  so 
is  every  one  that  is  born  of  the  Spirit."  Alford  explains  that  '  in  both 
languages,  that  in  which  Jesus  spoke,  as  well  as  that  in  which  this 
speech  is  reported,'  the  word  is  the  same,  •  I'neama  being  both  ivind 
and  spirit.''  Unfortunately  our  translators  have  here  again  taken 
upon  themselves  to  supply  a  capital  letter  to  Spirit,  thereby  introduc- 
ing a  personality  which  could  not  otherwise  be  inferred.  Young 
renders  :  '  Thou  mayest  not  wonder,  that  I  said  to  thee,  It  behoveth 
you  to  be  born  from  above  ;  the  Spirit  where  he  willeth  doth  breathe, 
and  his  voice  thou  hearest,  but  thou  hast  not  known  whence  he 
cometh,  and  whither  he  goeth  :  thus  is  every  one  who  is  born  of  the 
Spirit.'  This  interpretation  is  adopted  by  some  others,  neither  '  it ' 
nor  '  he '  being  expressed  in  the  original.  Alford  says  :  '  Bengel,  after 
Origen  and  Augustine,  takes  the  word  pnewna  with  which  this  word 
opens,  and  which  we  have  rendered  ivi/id,  of  the  Holy  Spirit  exclu- 
sively :  but  this  can  hardly  be.  The  form  of  the  sentence,  as  well  as 
its  import,  is  against  it.  The  ^vords  (bloirefh,  hi'urcst,  Icno/rest)  are 
all  said  of  well-known  facts.'  Tischendorf  renders  the  verse  :  '  The 
wind  blows  where  it  will,  and  thou  hearest  the  sound  thereof,  but 
knowest  not  whence  it  comes  and  whither  it  goes  :  so  is  every  one 
that  has  been  born  of  the  Spirit.'  The  '  Englishman's  Greek  Xew 
Testament '  gives  as  the  literal  translation,  '  everyone  that  has  been 
born  of  the  Spirit.'  This  last  clause  of  the  verse  makes  it  evident 
that  the  comparison  is  not  to  be  taken,  as  seems  generally  to  have 
been  assumed,  as  illustrating  the  mysterious  manner  in  wliich  the 
new  spiritual  birth  is  accomplished,  but  the  incomprehensible,  invi- 
sible existence  of  those  who  have  been  born  anew. 

Nicodemus  was  lost  in  wonder,  if  not  in  doubt.  Such  a  mystery 
was  too  deep  for  him  to  comprehend,  or  feel  at  all  certain  about. 
'  Nicodemus  answered  and  said  unto  him,  How  can  these  things  be  ? ' 
Whatever  his  profession,  this  reply  was  conceived  in  the  spnit  of  a 
Sadducee.  .Jesus  reminded  him  that  such  uncertainty  and  want  of 
assurance  with  respect  to  the  future  life  were  ill  suited  to  his  high 
]3osition  as  a  Jewish  teacher.  '  Jesus  answered  and  said  unto  him. 
Art  thou  the  teacher  of  Israel,  and  understandest  not  these  things  .'' ' 
It  was  in  vain  for  Jesus,  '  a  teacher  sent  from  God,'  and  others  like 
him,  to  speak  out  what  they  knew  and  testify  to  what  had  come 
under  their  own  observation,  if  their  declarations  were  to  be  met  with 
incredulity.  '  Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  thee,  We  speak  that  we  do 
know,  and  bear  witness  of  that  we  have  seen  ;  and  ye  receive  not  our 
witness.'  This  seems  to  refer  to  a  prevalent  scepticism  of  all 
scriptural  and  divine  teaching.  On  the  words,  '  We  speak  that  we 
do  know  .  .  ,'  Alford  has  the  note  ;  '  Why  these  plurals  ?  Various 
interpretations  have  been  given  :  "  Either  He  speaks  concerning 
Himself  and  the  Father,  or  concerning  Himself  alone  "  (Euthymius)  ; 
"  He  speaks  of  Himself  and  the  Spirit  (Bengel)  :  of  Himself  and  the 


14  THE    KING    AND    THE    KINGDOM:  [part  ii. 

Prophets  (Beza,  Tholuck)  ;  of  Himself  aud  John  the  Baptist  (Knapp) ; 
of  Teachers  like  himself  (IMeyer) ;  of  all  the  born  of  the  Spirit  (Laiige, 
AVcsley)  ;  of  the  three  Persons  in  the  Holy  Trinity  (Stier)  ;  or,  the 
plural  is  only  rhetorical  (Liicke,  De  Wette)."  '  Alford  adds  :  '  I  had 
rather  take  it  as  a  proverbial  saying  ;  q.d.,  "  I  am  one  of  those  who," 
&c.  Our  Lord  thereby  brings  out  the  unreasonableness  of  that 
unbelief  which  would  not  receive  His  witness,  but  made  it  an  excep- 
tion to  the  general  proverbial  rule,'  Most  probably  Nicodemus 
would  understand  the  word  '  we '  to  include  Jesus  and  John  the 
Baptist.  The  Pharisees  had  refused  to  accept  the  testimony  of  the 
latter,  and  Nicodemus  now  hesitates  to  believe  a  positive  statement 
made  by  the  former.  H"  the  teaching  of  Jesus  on  earthly  matters 
was  disregarded,  as  it  had  been,  what  expectation  could  there  be  of 
faith  in  his  assurances  relating  to  heavenly  matters  ?  'HI  told  you 
earthly  things,  and  ye  believe  not,  how  shall  ye  believe,  if  I  tell  you 
heavenly  things  ?  '  Xo  other  teacher  than  himself  was  familiar  with 
the  heavenly  world.  '  And  no  man  hath  ascended  into  heaven,  but 
he  that  descended  out  of  heaven,  ere/i  the  Son  of  man,  which  is  in 
heaven.'  Young's  literal  rendering  agrees  exactly  with  that  in  the 
'Englishman's  Greek  New  Testament:'  ' And  no  one  hath  gone  up 
into  the  heaven,  except  he  who  out  of  the  heaven  came  down — the 
Son  of  man  who  is  in  the  heaven.'  Hei'e  are  four  statements  :  (1) 
Only  one  person  had  gone  up  into  the  heavenly  world.  (2)  That 
one  had  come  down  out  of  the  lieavenly  world.  (3)  He  was  a  man, 
the  representative  or  Messiah  of  men.  '  the  Son  of  man.'  (4)  And 
he  was  in  heaven.  Let  us  consider  these  statements  seriatim.  (1) 
'  No  man  hath  ascended  into  heaven.'  Luther  uses  the  present  tense : 
'  Und  niemand  fahrt  gen  Himmel,  And  no  one  goes  to  heaven ; '  but 
other  translators  agree  in  using  the  past  tense,  '  hath  ascended.'  So 
clear  was  this  to  Alford  tliat  he  argues  :  '  He  is  here  speaking  by 
anticipation.  He  regards  therefore  throughout  the  passage,  the  great 
facts  of  redemption  as  accomplished,  and  makes  announcements  which 
could  not  be  literally  acted  upon  till  they  had  been  so  accora])lished.' 
Any  mind  unwarped  by  theological  dogmas  must  at  once  dismiss  such 
attempted  explanations.  The  assertion  of  Jesus  is  a  very  simple  one, 
requiring  no  rectification  or  amplification  :  no  man  had  gone  up  into 
heaven  except  (2)  one  who  had  come  down  out  of  heaven.  We  know 
that  one  to  be  Jesus.  Luke  has  told  his  miraculous  birth,  John  has 
declared  his  lofty,  ancient,  divine  origin  :  he  was  an  inhabitant  of 
heaven  born  into  our  world,  to  sojourn  here  and  pass  his  human  life 
among  us,  for  the  teaching  and  salvation  of  mankind,  being  (3)  'the 
Son  of  man,'  in  all  things  made  hke  nuto  his  brethren.  The  last 
statement,  (4)  '  which  is  in  heaven,'  requires  consideration.  The 
Revisers  note  that  '  many  ancient  authorities  omit'  the  words.  The 
tw^o  oldest  MSS.  omit  them,  notwithstanding  which  Tischendorf 
retains  them.  Alford  regards  them  as  asserting  '  the  being  in  heaven 
of  the  time  then  present,^  but  he  explains  or  qualifies  this  by  saying, 
'  (heaven  about  Him,  heaven  dwelling  on  earth)  ivhile  here,^  which 
transforms  the  words  either  into  a  mere  figure  of  speech  or  into  a 
contradiction  of  terms.  Alford  says  also  :  '  Doubtless  thi'  meaning- 
involves,  whose  place  is  in  heaven.''  That  commends  itself  as  a 
reasonable  interpretation,  the  distinction  being  between  '  the  Son  of 
man  which  is  in  heaven,'  conversant  with  '  heavenly  things,'  and 


PAKT  ir.]         A    STUDY    OF    THE    FOUR    GOSPELS.  15 

'  the  Son  of  man  which  is  on  earth,'  conversant  only  with  'earthly 
things.'  'No  man  hath  ascended,' obviously  means  '  no  man  living- 
on  earth.'  The  })assage  asserts  the  existence  of  humanity  in  heaven  ; 
hut  as  there  is  a  doubt  whether  the  worJs  '  whicli  is  in  heaven  '  were 
actually  spoken  by  Jesns,  it  would  not  bo  satisfactory  to  attempt  any 
developmcmt  of  the  doctrine  they  may  be  taken  to  convey. 

The  iniiuencc  of  this  Hon  of  man  descended  out  of  heaven  was 
designed  to  be  exerted  widely  and  beneficially  upon  mankind,  and 
would  resemble  that  of  the  brazen  si>r|)ent  made  and  raised  on  high  21  Nmn. -.» 
by  Moses  at  the  command  of  (iod  for  the  healing  of  the  dying 
Israelites.  'And  as  Moses  lifted  up  the  serpent  in  the  wilderness,  :!joi,!i  it 
even  so  must  the  Son  of  man  be  lifted  up  :  that  whosoever  believeth 
may  in  him  have  eternal  life.'  The  Authorised  Version  stands  as 
follows  :  '  that  whosoever  believeth  in  him  should  not  perish,  but 
have  eternal  life.'  Tir*  Revisers  and  Tischendorf,  on  the  authority 
of  the  two  oldest  MSS.,  have  omitted  the  words,  '  not  perish,  but.' 
The  Revisers  have  also  made  the  words  '  believeth  in  him  may  have,' 
a  marginal  reading,  an  1  have  altered  the  sense  by  putting  in  the  text, 
'  l)e]ieveth,  may  in  him  have  eternal  life.'  This  alteration  diifers 
from  the  rendering  of  Tischendorf,  Luther  and  Young,  that  of  the 
last  being  .  '  so  it  behoveth  the  Son  of  man  to  be  lifted  up,  that 
every  one  who  belie\'eth  in  him  may  not  parish,  bnt  may  have  life 
:igc-during.'  Taking  the  proper  rendering  of  the  word  '  eternal '  to 
lie  '  age-during,'  the  question  presents  itself  whether  that  term  is  not 
here  applicable  equally  to  the  serpent-bitten  and  serpent-healed  Israel- 
ites and  to  the  believers  on  the  uplifted  Son  of  man  ?  Otherwise  the 
simile  is  not  exact,  but  defective  in  an  important  particular,  standing 
in  fact  as  follows :  As  the  serpent  uplifted  in  the  wilderness  gave  a 
life  wiiich  was  not  eternal,  even  so  the  uplifted  Son  of  man  will  give 
a  life  which  is  eternal.  But  if  we  take  tiic  natural  sense  of  the  word 
'age-during'  this  inconsistency  disappears.  The  Israelites  were 
dying  before  completing  the  full  term  or  age  of  their  earthly 
existence :  the  act  of  healing  restored  to  them  their  proper  '  age- 
during  '  life,  which,  h  wever  it  might  vary  according  to  differences  of 
constitutions  and  surroundings,  would  not  be  prematurely  cut  short  by 
the  serpent-poison.  Even  so  the  Son  of  man  is  held  forth  as  convey- 
ing a  virtue  sufficient  to  antidote  everything  which  threatens  to  bring 
to  a  premature  end  the  heavenly  existence  of  which  be  had  been 
speaking.  The  idea  is  scriptural.  Messiah's  life-prolonging  influence 
is  not  for  th  IS  world,  but  for  the  next.  '  In  Adam  all  die  .  .  .  Even  lo  i.  Cor.  2 
so  in  Christ  shall  all  be  made  alive'  .  .  .  '  As  we  have  borne  the  image  „  i 
of  the  earthy,  we  shall  also  bear  the  image  of  the  heavenly.'  The 
nature  of  the  promise  of  '  eternal  life  '  depends  upon  the  meaning  of 
those  two  words.  There  can  be  no  doubt  as  to  the  sense  of  the  word 
'life;'  the  word  translated  'eternal'  or  'everlasting'  must  be 
brought  to  assume  in  our  minds  its  proper  import — 'age-during;' 
then  comes  the  question  as  to  the  significance  of  '  age  : '  is  it  a  period 
absolutely  endless  ?  oris  it  a  period  of  vast  duration  ?  or  is  it  a  period 
iixed  by  the  constitution  of  our  nature,  which  the  influence  of  the  Son 
of  man  will  maintain  to  its  utmost  limit  ? 

God,  in  his  love  to  mankind,  had  devoted  his  only  begotten  Son 
to  the  work  of  securing  that  supreme  boon  to  all  wlio  placed  their 
confidence  in  him.     'For  God  so  loved  the  world,  that  he  gave  his  3  JuIui  ^^^ 


16  THE    KiyG    AND    THE    KINGDOM:  [part  ii. 

only  begotten  Son,  that  ^vhosoe^•el•  bclievetli  on  him  should  not  perish, 
but  have  eternal  life.'  Tischendorf,  on  the  authorit}'  of  the  two 
oldest  M88.,  lias  replaced  '  his '  by  '  the/  The  introduction  of  the 
words 'should  not  perish '  clearly  points  to  the  impending  catastrophe 
of  Death.  This  cannot  be  the  death  which  all  who  are  born  on  earth 
must  undergo  :  no  faith  in  Jesus  saves  from  that.  But  he  is  speak- 
ing of '  heavenly  things,'  and  the  corollary  to  be  drawn  from  his 
words  is  this  :  (1)  either  the  seeds  of  dissolution  implanted  in  our 
nature  Avill  survive  in  our  resurrection-life,  and  develop  in  the  world 
to  come  the  same  inevitable  premature  mortality  as  in  this  ;  or,  (2) 
in  the  next  stage  of  our  existence  there  will  be  a  liability  and  inclina- 
tion towards  transgression  of  some  divine  law,  entailing  the  same 
fatal  consequences  as  those  which  overtook  the  first  Adam  and  his 
posteritj",  and  which  will  need  to  be  avoided  or  counteracted  by  faith 
in  Jesus.     The  Mosaic  account  of  the  fall  of  man  iuA-olves  the  idea 

■2  Gen.  IT  of  liis  premature  death  :  "  In  the  day  that  thou  eatest  thereof  thou 
shalt  surely  die  ; '  growth  and  development  would  stop,  and  dissolu- 
tion would  begin.     That  is  the  only  rational  interpretation,  seeing 

i  Gen.  0  that  Adam  did  not  forthwith  expire.  The  nine  hundred  and  thirty 
years  which  Adam  lived,  and  even  the  nine  hundred  and  sixty  nine 
of  Methuselah,  completed  not  the  full  age  to  which  the  perfect  man 
would  have  attained  I  tut  for  his  transgression  ;  and  the  elements  of 
decay  matured  rapidly  and  fatally  in  his  posterity,  cutting  short  the 
term  of  human  life  by  centuries,  so  that  Shem  the  son  of  Noah  lived 
<)00  years,  tiie  son  of  Shem  i'AH  years,  the  next  descendants  respec- 
tively 433,  4()4,  23'.),  23i),  230,  148  and  205  years,  the  last  named 
being  Terah  the  father  of  Abraham,  Still  the  age  of  man  steadily 
declined,  until  80  years  was  held  to  be  its  extreme  limit.  The  mind 
of  the  patriarch  Jacob  Avas  profoundly  impressed  by  the  rapid  and 

47  Geii.  9  constant  decline,  for  in  telling  his  age  to  Pharaoh  he  said  :  '  The 
days  of  the  years  of  my  pilgrimage  are  an  hundred  and  thirty  years  : 
few  and  evil  have  been  the  days  of  the  years  of  my  life,  and  they  have 
not  attained  unto  the  days  of  the  years  of  the  life  of  my  fathers  in 
the  days  of  their  pilgrimage.'  The  period  of  our  earthly  existence 
has  not  been  enlarged  by  the  work  of  Christ :  his  salvation  extends 
not  in  that  direction  ;  his  repeated  promises  of '  life  age-during  '  are 
for  the  world  to  come,  for  that  heavenly  life  and  kingdom  which  can 
only  be  revealed  and  realised  through  l^eing  *  born  anew  of  water  and 
the  Spirit.'  Dropping  the  ecclesiastical  and  symbolical  ideas  attached 
to  that  second  birth,  regarding  it  not  as  restricted  to  a  few  but  as  the 
universal  privilege  of  mankind,  it  is  a  solemn,  inevitable,  merciful 
reality,  a  phase  and  crisis  of  our  destiny  as  important,  probably  far 
more  important  than  our  birth  into  this  world.  In  the  '  heavenly 
things '  appertaining  to  that  new  sphere  of  existence,  the  Son  of  man 
must  still  be  taken  for  our  Guide  and  Saviour  ;  he  will  preserve  his 
adherents  from  the  sins  and  evils  which  threaten  that  life,  as  they 

10  i.  Cor.  45  have  here  marred  and  shortened  this,  and  as  our  '  second  Adam '  he 
will  become  to  us  '  a  life-giving  spirit.' 

Let  none  deem  this  view"  of  the  divine  mercy  too  bold  or  too  wide. 
The  Christ  came  not  for  judgment,  but  for  salvation  ;  not  to  save 

3  Joim  IT  particular  persons,  but  the  world.  '  For  God  sent  not  the  Son  into 
the  world  to  judge  the  world,  but  that  the  world  should  be  saved 
through  him.'     The   Revisers,  following  the  two  oldest  MSS.,  have 


lART  II.]      A   sTunv   or  the  four  gosi'els.  17 

ulfcored  'his  Son'  Lo  'tiio  Son/  They  have  also  replaced  in  this  and 
the  two  next  verses  the  word  '  condemn'  by  '  jnd,u:e,'  therein  agreeiiiu' 
with  Tischendorf,  Voiin^-  and  Alford.  The  oltice  of  the  Son  is  wot  to 
make  inqnisition  into  the  errors  and  sins  of  mankind,  but  to  delivu- 
them  from  their  condition  of  disease  and  death.  Thuse  who  trnst 
themselves  to  him  are  not  arraigned  as  criminals,  or  called  upon  to 
answer  for  ]iast  misdeeds.  '  He  that  believeth  on  him  is  not  judged.' . 
Nor  does  the  advent  of  the  Son  involve  any  such  judicial  procedure 
towni'ds  those  who  withhold  from  him  their  confidence  :  the  rejection 
^f.  him  by  tliem  leaves  them  in  their  former  evil  and  perilous  condi- 
tion. '  He  that  believeth  not  hath  been  judged  already,  because  he 
hath  not  believed  on  the  name  of  the  only  begotten  Son  of  (Jod.' 
There  can  be  n(j  excuse  for  those  who,  when  light  has  come  into  the 
world,  deliberately  prefer  the  darkness.  '  And  this  is  the  judgement, 
that  the  light  is  come  into  the  world,  and  men  loved  the  darkness 
rather  than  the  light.'  Only  evil  deeds  could  have  sought  the  cover 
of  the  night :  '  for  their  works  were  evil.'  livery  wrongdoer  hates 
light  and  avoids  it,  because  it  must  disclose  his  iniquity.  '  For  every 
one  that  doeth  (or,  practiseth)  ill  hateth  the  light,  and  cometh  not  to 
the  light,  lest  his  works  should  be  reproved  (or,  convicted).'  But  he 
who  truly  works,  and  works  truly,  comes  forward  to  where  the  light 
shines  most,  that  it  may  be  thrown  upon  his  work  and  show  that  it 
has  been  wrought  out  honestly  as  in  the  sight  of  God.  '  But  he  that 
doeth  the  truth  cometh  to  the  light,  that  his  works  may  be  made 
manifest,  that  (or,  because)  they  have  l3een  wTought  in  God.' 

Alford  alludes  to  the  fact  that '  many  Commentators,  since  the  time 
of  Erasmus,  who  first  suggested  the  notion,  have  maintained  that  the 
discourse  of  our  Lord  breaks  off  at  verse  IG,  and  the  rest  to  verse  21 
consists  of  the  remarks  of  the  Evangelist.'  The  principal  grounds 
for  that  idea  are  (a)  that  all  allusion  to  Nicodemus  is  henceforth 
dropped,  (b)  That  henceforth  past  tenses  are  used,  (c)  On  account 
of  the  use  of  onh/  hc<iotton,  verses  IG,  18,  which  is  peculiar  to  John. 
Alford  argues  vigorously  against  all  this,  and  concludes  '  that  the 
words  following,  to  verse  21,  cannot  be  otherwise  regarded  than  as 
uttered  by  our  Lord  in  continuation  of  his  discourse.'  With  respect 
to  the  use  of  the  term  '  only  begotten  '  '  Stier  well  enquires,  AVhencc 
did  John  get  this  word  but  from  the  lips  of  his  divine  Mastei-  ? 
Would  he  have  ventured  on  such  an  expression,  except  by  an 
authorization  from  Him  ?  '  Certainly  it  is  inconceivable  that  any 
honest  historian  could  present  such  a  combination  of  assertions  rela- 
ting to  the  subject  on  which  Jesus  discoursed  with  Nicodemus,  unless 
Avarranted  by  express  words  of  Jesus  spoken  either  then  or  at  some 
other  time. 

A  more  important  question  is  as  to  the  meaning  of  the  solemn  and 
positive  declarations  of  Jesus  respecting  the  new  birth.  The  conclu- 
sions already  arrived  at  have  been  based  on  the  natural  interpreta- 
tion of  the  words  employed,  without  reference  to  anything  apart  from 
them.  The  discourse  has  been  taken  as  conveying  its  own  meaning, 
•as  complete  in  itself,  not  needing  to  be  supplemented  by  a  reference 
to  something  found  elscAvhere,  and  not  to  be  understood  figuratively 
for  the  mere  purpose  of  its  assumed  connection  with  a  Church 
ordinance.  But  by  many  persons  that  mode  of  dealing  with  the 
discourse  has  been  set  aside  ;  they  have  rushed  to  the  conclusion  that 


18  THE    KING    AND    THE    KINGDOM:  [part  ii. 

Jesus  spoke  symbolically  ;   that  to  be  born  '  a,2;ain  '  or  '  anew '  or 
'  from  above,'  means  to  be  baptized  ;  that  the  '  water'  is  the  water 
of  baptism  ;  that  the  'spirit '  is  the  Holy  Spirit,  who  comes  with  or 
through  the  rite  of  baptism.     But  surely  if  Jesus  wished  to  impress 
upon  Nicodemus  the  absolute  necessity  of   baptism,  he  could  and 
10  Mark  10    would  havc  uscd  plainer  words,  as  he  did  on  another  occasion  :  '  He 
that  believeth  and  is  baptized  shall  be  saved.'     From   first  to  last 
Nicodemus  gathered  no  such  meaning,  but  was  lost  in  doubt  and 
wonderment  at  the  strangeness,  the  depth  and  the  breadth,  of  these 
statements  of  Jesus :  '  How  can  a  man  be  born  when  he  is  old  .  . 
How   can   these   things   be  ? '      Luther's   figurative  interpretation, 
quoted  by  Alford,  we  can  appreciate  and  respect :  '  My  teaching  is 
not  of  cloiiir/  and  leaving  undonp,  but  of  a  change  in  the  man ;  so  that 
it  is,  not  new  ivorhs  done,  but  a  new  man  to  do   them  ;  not  another 
life  only,  but  another  birth.''     From  the  first  there  has  been  a  ditter- 
euce   of  opinion.      Alford   quotes   Chrysostom  :    '  Some   say,   from 
heaven,  some,  from  the  beginning,'  and  adds  that  'he  and  Euthymius 
explain  it  by  regeneration  :  Origen,  Cyril,  and  Theophylact  taking 
the  otlier  meaning.'  Of  course  the  'new  birth  '  means  'regeneration,' 
but  not  necessarily  by  baptism.     Alford  takes  upon  himself  to  say  : 
'It  is  impossible  tiiat  Nicodemus  can  have  so  entirely  and  stupidly 
misunderstood  our  Lord's  words,  as  his  question  here  would  seem  to 
imply.'     It   is    much   more   natural   and   probable  to  assume   that 
Nicodemus  detected  no  reference  to  baptism  in  the  words  of  Jesus, 
notwithstanding  the  fact  that  '  the  idea  of  a  new  birth  was  by  no 
means  alien  from  the  Rabbinical  views.     They  described  a  proselyte 
when    baptized   as  "like  an  infant  just  born,"  Lightfoot.'     If  we 
suppose  Jesus  to  have  been  anxious  to  impress  upon  his  hearer  the 
impurtance  of  baptism,  would  it  not  have  been  wise  and  right  to 
speak  with  the  utmost  plainness,  to  avoid  all  possibility  of  doubt  or 
misapprebension  ?     Why  should  we  either  attribute  obscurity  to  the 
speaker  or   perversity  to  the  listener  ?     li   Dean   Alford   had   not 
started  with   the  foregone  conclusion  that  the  '  water  and  spirit ' 
must  as  a  matter  of  course  refer  to  the  water  administered  and  the 
Spirit  received  in  baptism,  and  if,  instead  of  doing  so,  he  had  bent  his. 
mind  to  an  unprejudiced  investigation  uf  the  discourse  of  Jesus,  prwbably 
he  would  not  have  accused  Nicodemus,  nor  have  penned  the  follow- 
ing passage  :  ''J'hei'e  can  be  no  doubt,  on  any  honest  interpretation  of 
the  words,  that  to  be  born  of  water  refers  to  the  token  or  outward 
sign  of  baptism,  to  be  born  of  the  Spirit  the  thing  signified,  or  in- 
ward grace  oi  the  Holy  Spirit.     All  attempts  to  get  rid  of  these  twa 
2)tain  Jacts  have  sprung  from  doctrinal  prejudices,    by   which  the 
views  of  expositors  have  been   warped.     Such  we  have  in  Calvin  : 
who  explains  the  words  to  mean,  '•  tlie  Spirit  who  cleanses  us,  and  by 
diffusing  His  infiueuce  in  us  inspires  the  vigour  of  heavenly  life  :  '* 
Grotius,  "the  Spirit,  who  cleanses  like  water  ;"  Cocceius,  "the  grace 
of  God,  washing  away  our  uncleanness  and  sins  ; "  Tholuck,  who 
holds  that  not  J^aptism  itself,  but  on^y  its  idea,  that  of  cleansing  is 
referred  to  ;  and  others,  who  endeavour  to  resolve  water  and  the 
vSpirit  into  a  figure,  so  as  to  make  it  mean  "  the  cleansing  or  purify- 
ing Spirit."     All  the  better  and  deeper  ex23ositors  have  recognized 
the  coexistence  of  the  two,  water  and  the  Spirit.'     '  Doctrinal  preju- 
dices ! '     Alford   applied   the   expression   to  prejudices  against    the 


r.vuTii.]  .1    STUDY    OF    THE    FOUR    GOSRELS.  19 

doctrine  of  l)aptisiii;il  regeneration  :  his  opponents  would  say  it 
applies  equally  to  ])rejudices  in  favour  of  that  doctrine.  Apart  from 
that  question.  Alford  contends  that  a  real  meaning,  instead  of  a  bare 
figurative  meaning,  should  be  attached  to  the  statements  of  Jesus. 
'I'o  that  extent  we  are  in  agrecincut  :  under  that  conviction  and  in  that 
direction,  the  Ibregoing  independent  investigation  has  been  carried  out. 

We  ha\  e  now  to  return  to  the  feast  of  tabernacles.  After  the 
incidents  connected  with  it,  the  observation  follows  :  '  And  they  went  "^  J"'-'"  ■''■i 
every  man  unto  his  own  house.'  This  may  be  understood  to  denote 
the  completion  of  the  festival,  dui'iug  which  'the  people  lived  for  a 
week  in  booths,  to  remind  them  of  their  desert  wanderings.'*  Jesus 
retired  to  the  mount  of  Olives,  on  the  outskirts  of  Jerusalem.  '  But  s  Joim  i 
.lesus  went  unto  the  mount  of  Olives.'  Early  in  the  morning  he 
returned  to  the  city,  seated  himself  in  the  temple,  and  there  began 
discoursing  to  the  crowd  which  came  to  hear  him.  '  And  early  in  the  ,<  2 
morning '  (literally,  at  dawn — Young)  '  he  came  again  into  the 
temj)le,  and  all  the  people  came  unto  him,  and  he  sat  down,  and 
taught  them.'  Although  the  temple  was  the  recognised  place  for 
I'eligious  worship,  it  bore  small  resemblance  to  our  consecrated 
cathedrals  and  churches.  The  people  seem  to  have  wandered  at  their 
will  within  its  precincts,  and  went  even  to  the  length  of  buying  and 
selling,  making  it  a  market  place  for  doves,  sheep  and  oxen,  which 
were  probably,  at  least  ostensibly,  required  for  sacrifice.  After  a 
time,  the  discourse  being  either  ended  or  interrupted,  the  scribes  and 
Pharisees  made  their  appearance,  bringing  with  them  a  woman  who 
had  been  detected  in  her  sin.  They  placed  her  in  the  midst  of  those 
present,  and  told  Jesus  what  was  the  charge  against  her.  '  And  the  ^'  "•  ^ 
scribes  and  the  Pharisees  bring  a  woman  taken  in  adultery  ;  and 
having  set  her  in  the  midst,  they  say  unto  him,  Master  (or,  Teacher), 
this  Woman  hath  been  taken  in  adultery,  in  the  very  act.'  The  only 
question  to  be  decided  was  as  to  what  ought  to  be  done  to  her.  The 
Mosaic  law  doomed  tlie  otl'ender  to  death,  which  was  to  be  brought 
about,  not  by  a  single  executioner,  but  by  the  combined  action  of  the 
congregation,  each  casting  a  stone  or  stones  at  the  criminal.  Alford 
explains  :  '  The  command  here  mentioned  is  not  to  be  found,  unless 
"putting  to  death"  general!}',  is  to  be  interpreted  as  stoning.'  It 
would  seem,  however,  to  have  been  necessarily  and  clearly  inferred,  as 
Alford  admits,  from  22  I)eu.  23,  24,  and  the  command  was  so  under- 
stood. '  Now  in  the  law  Moses  commanded  us  to  stone  such.'  Alford  "  ^ 
renders  'such'  as  'such  women.'  The  accusers  invited  Jesus  to 
express  his  views  as  to  the  proper  mode  of  dealing  with  the  woman. 
'  What  then  sayest  thou  of  her  ? '  The  Revisers,  adopting  the  reading  ^  s 
of  Wordsworth,  have  added  '  of  her.'  The  narrator  explains  that  the 
question  was  not  put  in  good  faith,  but  with  the  express  object  of 
founding  upon  the  reply  of  Jesus  an  accusation  against  him.  '  And  ,,  « 
this  they  said,  tempting  (or,  trying)  him,  that  they  might  have 
whereof  to  accuse  him.'  We  can  only  conjecture  the  grounds  on 
which  they  could  have  done  so.  Jesus  had  already  been  reproached 
as  'a  friend  of  publicans  and  sinners.'  If  on  this  occasion  hen  Mat.  19 
inclined  towards  mercy,  his  leniency  would  expose  him  to  further 

*  "  Helps  to  the  Study  of  the  Bible." 

c  2 


20  THE    KIXU    AND    THE    KINGDOM:  |  i-akt  ii. 

misinterpretation  and  calumny.  He  had  also  been  cliar^'ed  with 
breaking  the  law  of  Moses  by  infringino-  the  sabbath  :  if  in  this  case 
he  were  to  advocate  the  remission  of  capital  punishment,  he  would 
be  laying  himself  open  to  a  similar  reproach.  Yet  the  fate  of  this 
erring  woman  seemed  to  be  left  in  his  hands  ;  a  word  from  him 
justifying  the  view  expressed  by  these  scribes  and  Pharisees  might  be 
equivalent  to  a  sentence  of  death  against  her.  Moreover,  the 
punishment  of  death  for  such  an  offence  was  probably  opposed  to 
Roman  law,  and  the  enemies  of  Jesus  would  have  been  only  too  ready 
to  denounce  him  as  the  instigator  of  the  deed  if,  having  been  appealed 
to  on  the  subject,  he  made  no  protest  against  the  proposed  death  by 
stoning.  Alford  quotes  Liicke  on  this  point:  'Some  kind  of  civil 
or  political  collision  the  question  certainly  was  calculated  to  pro^'()ke: 
but  from  the  brevity  of  the  narration,  and  our  want  of  more  accui'ate 
knowledge  of  criminal  proceedings  at  the  time,  it  is  impossible  to  lay 
down  definitely,  wherein  the  collision  would  have  consisted.'  .lesus 
did  not  feel  himself  called  upon  to  answer  the  question  put  to  him. 
AVisely  and  discreetly  he  maintained  an  entire  silence.  Criminals 
should  be  brought  by  their  accusers  to  a  proper  tribunal  of  justice. 
AVhy  should  Jesus  be  appealed  to  publicly  on  a  point  of  law  in  this 
particular  case  ?  He  practically  refused  to  discuss  the  matter  :  they 
had  no  right  to  question  him,  and  he  certainly  had  the  right  to 
remain  silent.  He  chose  to  do  so,  and  by  his  attitude  and  gesture 
plainly  intimated  his  determination.  '  But  Jesus  stooped  down,  ami 
with  his  finger  wrote  on  the  ground.'  Under  the  peculiar  circum- 
stances, this  method  of  refusing  to  be  entangled  into  a  discussion,  was 
wise  and  dignified.  Probably  a  feeling  of  indignation  may  have  had 
to  do  with  it.  All  they  cared  about  was  to  trump  up  an  accusation 
against  himself,  and  they  were  not  ashamed  to  make  this  poor,  guilty. 
trem])ling  creature  the  occasion  of  it !  He  will  baffle  their  designs  : 
not  a  word  shall  they  extract  from  him.  Let  them  go  their  way, 
leaving  him  to  his  work,  or  ab  least  to  his  meditations.  His  mind  is 
busy  with  some  other  train  of  thought :  better  anything  than  to  take 
or  give  counsel  with  such  men  on  such  a  subject !  It  were  useless  to 
show  the  anger  which,  we  know,  could  flash  on  occasion  from  his 
eye  ;  it  were  cruel  to  look  towards  the  crushed,  shame-laden  woman  : 
better  to  fix  his  gaze  on  the  ground  at  his  feet.  Those  apparently 
idle,  aimless  tracings  of  his  fingers  on  the  floor  are  signs,  not  of 
vacancy,  but  of  a  mind  at  work,  full  to  overflowing  with  who  can 
say  what  blended  thoughts  of  scorn,  grief,  pity.  What  words,  if  any, 
were  written  l)y  the  nervous  workings  of  his  fingers  during  that  deep 
absorption,  none  can  tell,  though  some  fiave  tried  to  guess.  *  One  of 
our  MSS.  reads  :  "'  He  wrote  on  the  ground  the  sins  of  each  of  them,"  ' 
(Alford).  When  would  the  divine  law  come  to  be  written  as  easily 
on  human  hearts  ?  When  would  it  cease  to  be  as  light,  as  fleeting, 
as  well-nigh  in^■isible  there,  as  though  traced  on  unyielding  stone  or 
on  the  wind-blown,  feet-trodden  dust  of  the  earth  ?  When  would 
the  two  great  laws  of  love  to  God  and  man  be  recognised  as 
binding  and  supreme  ?  Many  and  deep  the  problems  Jesus  nn'ght 
then  be  pondering.  They  scrupled  not,  however,  to  interrupt  liis 
reverie,  pestering  him  with  repetitions  of  their  question,  *  AVliat  then 
sayest  thou  of  her  ? '  At  last  he  raised  himself  to  meet  their  super- 
cilious gaze  and  give  an  answer  to  their  mockiug  words.     It  was 


i-AKT  II.]  .1    STUDY    OF    THE    FOUJi    (U>S/'Fl.S.  21 

their  matter,  not  hi.s  ;  tliey  had  raised  the  (|nesti(iii  about  their  duty  ; 
let  them  act  accordinji;  to  their  light  and  eonscience.  'But  wheusjohi.r 
they  continued  askiii,"-  liim,  he  lifted  up  himself,  and  said  unto  them. 
He  that  is  without  sin  amont;-  you,  let  him  first  cast  a.  stone  at  her.' 
if,  knowing'  well  the  infirmities,  degradation,  and  sinful  ])ropensitics 
of  human  nature,  they  judged  it  right,  wise,  expedient,  and  their 
<luty,  to  insist  upon  the  rigorous  exaction  of  the  stern  penalty  decreed 
by  Moses  so  many  centuries  ago,  let  them  })roceed  to  (tariy  out  the 
sentence.  Let  any  one  of  them  who  knew  himself  to  i^e  pure  in 
mind,  in  heart,  in  conduct,  cast  the  first  stone  at  her,  and  then  all 
would  be  free  to  follow  his  example.  That  was  the  first  and  last 
word  of  Jesus  on  the  subject.  Again  he  hid  his  face  from  everyone, 
stooped  down,  and  began  afresh  that  mysterious  writing  on  the 
ground.  'And  again  he  stooj^ed  down,  and  with  his  finger  wrote  on  ,,  s 
the  ground.'  Not  one  of  them  dared  now  to  lift  his  hand  first  against 
the  woman.  When  the  eldest  was  seen  to  rise,  it  was  not  to  cast  a 
stone,  but  to  leave  the  place.  The  next  in  age  and  honour  followed 
his  example.  With  every  departure,  the  responsibility  laid  upon 
those  remaining  was  felt  the  more  ;  one  by  one  each  man  slunk  away, 
until  Jesus  and  the  woman  alone  were  left.  '  And  thej',  Avlien  they  „  ;► 
heard  it,  went  out  one  by  one,  beginning  from  the  eldest,  erc77-  unto 
rhe  last :  and  Jesus  was  left  alone,  and  the  woman  where  she  was,  in 
the  midst.'  Then  Jesus  rose  from  his  stooping  posture  :  had  he  done 
so  sooner,  or  had  he  not  stooped  at  all,  probably  his  adversaries 
would  have  met  his  gaze  defiantly,  and  have  braved  out  the  matter  to 
the  end.  It  was  far  better  settled  thus.  Better,  it  would  seem,  than 
Jesus  himself  anticipated  ;  for  his  first  question  indicated  un- 
consciousness and  surprise.  '  And  Jesus  lifted  up  himself,  and  said  ••  i'> 
unto  her.  Woman,  where  are  they  ? '  His  last  look  at  them  had 
discerned  a  general  determination  to  convict  her.  AVas  it  possible 
that  not  one  out  of  all  of  them  had  formulated  the  sentence  of  con- 
demnation ?  '  Did  no  man  condemn  thee  ? '  Yes  !  it  had  turned  -.  n' 
out  even  so.  'And  she  said,  No  man,  Lord  (Sir — -Young).'  Then  -.  n 
she  might  dismiss  all  fear  :  Jesus  would  be  the  last  man  to  raise 
hand  or  voice  against  her.  '  And  Jesus  said.  Neither  do  I  condemn  .,  n 
thee.'  She  was  free  to  go,  uncondemned,  but  not  unwarned.  Let 
her  ever  henceforth  avoid  the  sin  which  had  placed  her  life  in  peril. 
"Go  thy  way  ;  from  henceforth  sin  no  more.'  ..    n 

To  this  narrative  the  Eevisers  have  appended  the  note  :  '  ]\[ost  of 
the  ancient  authorities  omit  John  vii.  53 — viii.  11.  Those  which 
contain  it  vary  much  from  each  other.'  Afford  explains  :  '  This 
passage  is  to  be  treated  very  differently  from  tlie  rest  of  the  sacred 
text.  In  the  Alexandrine,  Vatican,  Paris,  and  Sinaitic  MSS.,  the 
ancient  Syriac  Versions,  and  all  the  early  fathers,  it  is  omitted  :  the 
Cambridge  MS.,  alone  of  our  most  ancient  authorities  contains  it. 
Augustine  states,  that  certain  expunged  it  from  their  MSS.,  because 
they  thought  it  might  encourage  sin.  But  this  will  not  account  for 
the  very  general  omission  of  it,  nor  for  the  fact  that  Ch.  vii.  53  is 
included  in  the  omitted  portion.  Eusebius  assigns  it  apparently  to 
the  apocryphal  "  Gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews."  .  .  In  the  MSS. 
which  contain  it,  the  number  of  variations  is  very  much  greater  than 
in  any  other  equal  portion  of  Scripture :  so  much  is  this  the 
case,  that  there  are  in  fact  three  separate  texts,  it  being  hardly  possible 


'22  THE    A'IjVG    AND    THE    KINGDOM:  [paiit  ii. 

to  unite  them  into  one'  The  passage  was  rejected  by  Tischendori", 
as  no  part  of  the  original  gospel.  But  he  gives  it  iu  two  forms,  one 
from  the  text  of  D,  or  the  Cambridge  M8. ;  the  other  according  to 
the  received  text,  or  the  Elzcvu'  of  1(524.  Comparing  these,  the 
differences  are  unimportant.  The  narrative  carries  on  the  face  of  it 
the  stamp  of  authenticity.  The  minute  details  and  touches  are  such 
as  could  have  been  given  only  by  an  eye-witness.  As  in  a  picture  a 
great  artist  is  revealed  by  his  manner  and  style,  so  in  this  narrative 
we  discern  certain  inimitable  characteristics  of  Jesus,  his  wisdom,  his 
caution,  his  self-restraint,  his  deep  insight,  his  mastery  in  argument, 
his  loving  gentleness,  his  broad  compassion. 

The  evangelist  now  introduces  a  new  subject  Avith  the  words, 
8  John  1-2  '  Again  therefore  Jesus  spake  unto  them,  saying,  I  am  the  light  of 
the  world.'  Tiie  expression  '  again  therefore  '  seems  to  indicate  the 
recommencement  of  an  address  :  possibly  Jesus  had  been  interrupted, 
and  his  congregation  dispersed,  by  tlie  entrance  of  the  priests  with 
the  woman  ;  and  possibly  the  rising  sun, — the  people  having 
assembled  at  early  dawn, — suggested  the  metaphor.  It  was  very 
bold,  suggestive,  self-laudatory, — deliberately  chosen  on  that  account, 

"  1-  — for  Jesus  added  :  '  He  that  followeth  me  shall  not  walk  in  the  dark- 
ness, but  shall  have  the  light  of  life.'  Xo  ordinary  man  could  dare 
to  speak  such  words  ;  only  one  who  knew  himself  to  be  above  all 
others  of  mankind,  in  his  person,  attributes,  office,  could  claim  a  pre- 
eminence so  exalted,  so  superhuman.  In  this  and  similar  assertions 
made  by  Jesus  with  respect  to  himself^  we  find  the  justification  of 
this  evangelist  for  those  astounding  statements  about  the  origin, 
nature  and  influence  of  Jesus,  which  are  placed  in  the  forefront  of 
ijohii  4       the  narrative.     AVhen  the  writer  asserted:  'In  him  was  light,  and 

„    r,       the  light  was  the  life  of  men.     And  the  light  shineth  in  the  darkness  ; 

„  !)  and  the  darkness  overcame  it  not  .  .  .  The  ti'ue  light,  which 
lighteth  every  man,  was  coming  into  the  world,' — the  authority  for 
such  statements  was  the  express  declaration  of  Jesus.  The  evangelist 
was  not  giving  us  his  own  notions,  but  the  actual  claims  and  assur- 
ances of  Jesus  himself. 

In  opposition  to  the  solemn  asseveration  now  made  by  Jesus  that 
he  was  the  light  and  life  of  the  world,  the  Pharisees  brought  two 
objections:  (1)  it  was  an  uncorroborated  statement;  (2)  it  was 
sjoiin  i:;  false.  'The  Pharisees  therefore  said  unto  him.  Thou  bearest  witness 
of  thyself  ;  thy  witness  is  not  true.'  Jesus  took  up  the  question. 
Even  though  his  statement  I'ested  only  upon  his  own  word,  it  was 
none  the  less  tfue  ;  for  he  knew  his  origin  and  his  destiny,  his  abode 
prior  to  his  entrance  into  this  world,  and  the  place  which  would 

:,  11  receive  him  on  his  departure  hence.  'Jesus  answered  and  said  unto 
them.  Even  if  I  bear  witness  of  myself,  my  witness  is  true  ;  for  I 
know  whence  I  came,  and  whither  I  go.'  On  those  points  they  were 
entirely  ignorant,  and  could  exercise  only  a  judgment  based  upon  the 

„  11,  i'>  ordinary  experiences  of  humanity.  '  But  ye  know  not  whence  I 
come,  or  whither  I  go.  Ye  judge  after  the  flesh  '  Not  so  did  Jesus 
judge  any  man  ;  but  any  judgment  he  might  form  would  be  based 
upon  higher  knowledge  than  that  of  mankind  generally,  for  it  would 
not  be  merely  human,  he  being  aided  by  the  presence  and  guidance 

,.    15, 1(3  of  Him  w'ho  had  sent  him  hither.     '  I  judge  no  man.     Yea  and  if  J 


I'ART  11.]  A    STUDY    OF    THE    FOUR    GOSPELS.  23 

judfje,  my  judgment  is  true  ;  for  I  am  not  alone,  but  I  and  the 
Father  that  sent  me.'  In  verse  JO  Tischcndorf,  following-  the 
Siiiaitic  jMS.,  reads  '  he  '  instead  of  '  the  Father.'  These  sayings  of 
Jesus  possess  an  actuality,  reality,  which  it  is  well  for  us  to  gras])  and 
hold.  Others  can  give  us,  witli  respect  to  (Jod  and  things  unseen, 
only  abstract  reasonings,  abstruse  speculations  ;  Jesus  gives  us 
positive  statements  of  facts  within  his  own  experience.  In  sonic 
other  portion  of  the  universe  he  had  a  prior  existence  ;  there  lie  had 
subnn'tted  liiniself  to  the  will  of  One  who  had  sent  him  on  a  mission 
to  mankind  ;  while  here,  lie  was  conscious  of  the  presence  and 
^guidance  of  him  who  had  sent  him  ;  when  his  earthly  career  should 
end  he  knew  whither  he  w^ould  depart  out  of  the  world.  All  this  is  as 
claav  and  positive  as  it  is  startling  and  profoundly  interesting.  There 
is  no  incongruity  between  it  and  our  comparatively  small  experiences 
of  things  material  and  spiritual.  In  the  mind  of  Jesus  there  was  no 
shadow  of  doubt,  hesitation  or  uncertainty.  He  was  as  sure  of  the 
personal  existence  of  the  Father  who  had  sent  him,  as  of  his  own. 
If  the  unsu})j)orted  testimony  of  Jesus  was  not  enough  for  these 
Pharisees,  leL  them  know  that  there  were  actually  two  persons  certi- 
fying, Jesus  and  his  Father.  'Yea  and  in  your  law  it  is  written,  *^  J"'"' 
that  the  witness  of  two  men  is  true.  I  am  he  that  beareth  witness  of 
myself,  and  the  Father  that  sent  me  beareth  witness  of  me.'  There- 
upon they  challenged  him,  apparently  in  derision,  to  produce  his 
Father.  '  They  said  therefore  unto  him.  Where  is  thy  Father  ? '  To 
this  Jesus  replied,  that  they  were  as  unable  to  recognise  himself  as  his 
Father  :  no  knowledge  of  him  'after  the  flesh'  was  a  true  revelation, 
iind  if  they  had  possessed  any  spiritual  perception  of  himself,  they 
\vould  have  discerned  his  Father  also.  '  Jesus  answered,  Ye  know 
neither  me,  nor  my  Father  :  if  ye  knew  me,  ye  would  know 
my  Father  also.'  The  essential  idea  of  Fatherhood  is  likeness  of 
nature,  and  the  failure  to  know,  appreciate,  comprehend,  the  kSou 
must  extend  also  to  their  apprehension  of  the  Father. 

These  sayings  of  Jesus  were  recorded  by  one  who  heard  them,  and 
who  was  able  to  state  the  exact  place  of  their  delivery.  '  These 
Avords  spake  he  in  the  Treasury,  as  he  taught  in  the  temple.'  And 
still  his  enemies  failed  to  carry  out  their  design  of  apprehending 
him  ;  not  from  want  of  will  or  opportunity,  but  owing  to  some  divine 
overruling  of  their  plans.  That  seems  to  be  the  meaning  of  the 
evangelist's  statement :  '  And  no  man  took  him,  because  his  hour  was 
not  yet  come.'  Being  still  free,  Jesus  shrank  not  from  speaking. 
He  addressed  to  the  Pharisees  some  bold,  plain,  parting  words, 
amounting  to  repudiation  if  not  denunciation.  '  He  said  therefore 
again  unto  them,  I  go  away,  and  ye  shall  seek  me,  and  shall  die  in 
your  sin  :  whither  I  go,  ye  cannot  come.'  Jesus  seems  here  to  fore- 
tell a  time  when  the  present  circumstances  would  be  reversed  :  he 
would  be  absent,  and  they  anxious  to  tind  him,  yet  doomed  to  perish 
in  their  sin,  it  being  impossible  for  them  to  gain  his  presence.  The 
Revisers  in  this  \erse  have  altered  '  my  way '  into  '  away,'  and  *  sins  ' 
into  'sin,'  agreeing  with  l^Kiug  and  other  modern  transhitors.  Tis- 
chcndorf inserts  the  word  '  away '  a  second  time  :  '  Whither  I  go 
away  : '  the  verb,  hiipat/d,  is  the  same  in  both  places.  The  saying 
sounded  mysterious  :  to  go  whither  none  of  them  could  follow, 
might  signify  going  out  of  the  world  altogether.    AVas  he  then, 


24  THE   KING    AND    THE    KINGDOM :  [part  ii. 

thinking  of  suicide  ?  'The  Jews  therefore  said,  "Will  he  kill  him- 
self, that  he  saith,  Whither  I  go,  ye  cannot  come  ?  '  The  question 
was  not  so  harsh  and  offensive  as  it  would  ha\e  been  hadtheyknown, 
as  we  know,  the  ]jrescience  of  Jesus  with  respect  to  his  approaching 
death.  In  repelling  their  suggestion,  he  explained  the  precise  import 
of  his  words.  His  origin  was  different  from  theirs:  he  belonged  to 
another  world  than  this.  'And  he  said  unto  them.  Ye  are  from 
beneath  ;  I  am  from  above  :  ye  are  of  this  world  ;  1  am  not  of  this 
world.'  That  fact  justified  the  assertion  he  had  made  :  this  was  a 
world  of  perishing  sinners,  and  if  they  believed  not  that  One  had 
come  from  another  w-orld  with  the  offer  of  life  age-during.  there 
could  be  no  escape  from  death.  '  I  said  therefore  unto  you,  that  ye 
sliall  die  in  your  sins  :  for  except  ye  believe  that  I  am  he  (or,  I  am), 
ye  shall  die  in  your  sins.'  Tischendorf  renders  :  '  ye  will  die  in  your 
sins  : '  it  was  no  threat,  but  a  pure  statement  of  the  fact  that  without 
a  deliverer  bringing  life  from  above,  there  can  be  no  hope  of  salva- 
tion from  death.  Alford  calls  attention  to  the  fact  that  the  italicised 
word  'he'  is  not  in  the  original.  Tiie  remark  of  Jesus  gave  rise  to  a 
further  question.  'They  said  therefore  unto  him,  Who  art  thou  ?  * 
In  the  Revised  Version  the  answer  of  Jesus  stands  as  follows  : 
'Jesus  said  unto  them,  Even  that  which  I  ha\e  also  spoken  unto  you 
from  the  beginning  (or,  Bow  /,s-  //  that  I  e\en  speak  to  you  at  all  ?) ' 
An  alternative  rendering  so  peculiar  indicates  considerable  doubt  as 
to  the  meaning.  Alford  explains  :  '  Our  Lord's  reply  has  been  found 
\ery  difficult,  from  reasons  which  can  hardly  be  explained  to  the 
English  reader.  The  A.  V.  "  even  the  same  that  I  said  unto  you 
from  the  beginning,"  cannot  well  be  right.  The  verb  rather  means 
to  njjeaJc  or  discourse,  than  to  sai/ :  the  connecting  particle  cannot 
well  be  rendered  evai ;  and  the  word  rendered  "  from  the  beginning  " 
far  more  probably  means  "  essentially,"  or  "  in  very  deed."  This 
being  premised,  the  sentence  may  be  rendered  (literally)  thus : 
"Essentially  that  which  J  also  discourse  unto  you  :"  or,  "In  very 
deed,  that  same  which  I  speak  unto  you."  He  is  the  word — His 
(liscovrscs  are  tbe  rcvelaiion  of  Himself.''  Tischendorf  renders  : 
'  Altogether  that  which  I  am  telling  you  ; '  Young :  '  Even  what  1 
speak  to  you  at  the  beginning.'  The  alternative  rendering  :  'That  I 
even  speak  to  you  at  all,'  differs  from  all  the  above,  especially  as  the 
Revisers  have  prefaced  it  with  the  three  italicised — imaginary — 
words,  '  How  is  it,''  and  have  inserted  a  note  of  interrogation.  That 
would  have  been  no  answer  to  the  question,  but  sounds  like  an  ex- 
pression of  petulant  impatience,  which  it  is  not  likely  would  have 
been  uttered  by  Jesus.  Putting  that  aside,  the  other  renderings 
agree  in  one  point :  in  reply  to  the  enquiry  Who  he  was,  Jesus  told 
what  he  was  :  '  that  same  which  I  speak  to  you  : '  '  that  which  I  am 
also  telling  you  :'  '  that  I  speak  to  you  ; '  '  what  I  said  to  you  ; '  '  that 
which  I  have  altogether  spoken  unto  you  ; '  and  '  altogether  that 
which  also  I  say  to  you,'  the  last  being  the  translation  given  in  the 
'  Englishman's  Greek  New  Testament.'  The  only  doubt  is  as  to 
whether  the  word  rendered  by  the  Revisers  'from  tlie  beginning,'  by 
Y'oung  and  Sharpe,  '  at  the  beginning,'  is  not  better  rendered  by 
' essentially,' or  '  in  very  deed,'  or  'altogether.'  In  either  case  we 
need  go  back  no  further  than  the  '  beginning  '  of  this  discourse  and 
the  saying  of  Jesus,  '  I  am  the  h'ght  of  the  Avorld.'     He  would  have 


r.viiT  IT.]         A    STUDY    OF    THE    FOUR    GOSFELi<.  25 

tlicin  know  him  only  nnder  the  aspect  in  Avhich  he  hiul  presented 
himself:  not  as  a  Person  merely,  but  as  a  Power  and  Influence,  dis- 
])ersing  'darkness'  and  imparting  '  the  light  of  life.' 

The  meaning  of  what  follows  is  not  apparent  on  the  surface.  'Isjoin,  v. 
have  many  things  to  speak  and  to  judge  concerning  you.'  The  Revisers 
liavc  replaced  'say'  by  'speak,'  and  'of  you'  by  'concerning  you.' 
Young  renders  :  'Many  things  1  have  to  speak,  and  to  judge  concern- 
ing you.'  The  English  idiom  leaves  us  in  doubt  whether  the  '  speaking' 
as  well  as  the  '  judging  '  is  'concerning  you,'  or  whether  two  distinct 
•statements  are  made  :  (1)  '  I  liave  many  things  to  speak,'  and  (2)  •  I 
have  many  things  to  judge  of  you.'  Luther's  translation  is  clear  :  '  Fch 
habe  viel  von  euch  zu  reden  und  zu  richten.'  '  I  have  much  of  you  to 
speak  and  to  judge,'  which  agrees  with  the  order  of  the  wt)rds  in  the 
original :  '  Many  things  I  have  concerning  you  to  say  and  to 
judge.' 

'  Howbeit  he  that  sent  me  is  true.'  The  connection  between  this  ■•  -'' 
and  what  precedes  is  not  clear.  The  word  alcthes,  rendered  '  true,' 
is  defined  :  of  persona,  true,  sincere  ;  truthful,  frank,  honest :  of 
lhin(/s,  real,  actual.  Sanmel  Sharpe  brings  out  the  meaning  clearly 
and  boldly  :  '  Moreover  he  that  sent  me  is  to  be  trusted,'  which 
answers  to  Luther's  '  wahrhaftig,'  '  truthful  or  reliable.'  That  makes 
evident  the  sense  of  the  following  words  :  'And  the  things  which  I  ••  -'^ 
heard  from  him,  these  speak  1  unto  (Gr.  into)  the  world.'  The 
'  blnglishman's  Greek  New  Testament'  renders  verbatim:  'And  I 
what  I  heard  from  him.  these  things  I  say  to  the  world.'  The  oldest 
^LS.  reads,  '  heard  with  him.' 

The  evangelist  states  that  the  listeners  did  not  understand  the 
allusion.     '  They  perceived  not  that  he  spake  to  them  of  the  Father.'      ••    '-'' 
The   Revisers   have   replaced   '  understood '    by   '  percei\ed.'      The 

*  Englishman's  CJ.  N.  T.'  renders  :  '  They  knew  not  that  the  Father 
to  them  he  spoke  of.'     In  verse  2ii  the  Sinaitic  MS.  reads,  instead  of 

*  he  that  sent  me,'  '  the  Father  that  sent  me,'  and  in  this  verse  : 
'they  perceived  not  that  he  spake  to  them  of  the  Father  God.'  That 
reading  obviates  the  following  comment  of  Alford  :  '  However  im- 
probable this  may  be,  after  the  plain  words,  "  the  Father  that  sent 
me,"  in  verse  18,  it  is  stated  as  a  fact.'  According  to  the  Sinaitic 
.MS.,  they  understood  that  he  spoke  of  his  father,  but  at  once  asked, 

'  Where  is  thy  father  ?  '  because  they  did  not  realise  the  fact  tluit  he      '•    '" 
meant  the  Divine  Father. 

Perceiving  their  obtuseness,  Jesus  foretold  the  way  in  which  they 
would  come  to  know  hira,  and  that  his  acts  and  Avords  were  by  the 
])Ower  and  teaching  of  the  Father.  '  Jesus  therefore  said,  AVhen  ye  '•  -^^ 
Jiave  lifted  up  the  Son  of  man,  then  shall  ye  know  that  I  am  he  (or, 
1  am)  ;  and  that  1  do  nothing  (or,  and  I  do  nothing)  of  myself,  but 
as  the  Father  taught  me,  I  speak  these  things.'  Let  us  try  to  grasp 
the  meaning  of  this.     The   j^lain,  natural   sense  of  '  lifted  up '  is 

*  exalted.'     The  verb  is  hiipsoo,  the  same  as  in  the  passage,  '  he  that  i^  '•"'^'- 1» 
humbleth  himself  shall  be  exalted.'    That  sense  is  not  to  be  considered 

as  interlered  with  or  displaced  because  the  evangelist,  on  a  subse- 
tjuent  occasion,  attached  an  additional  interpretation  to  the  word  : 
'And  I,  if  I  be  lilted  up  from  (or,  out  of)  the  earth,  will  draw  alU- ■'"'"' 3- 
men  unto  myself.  But  this  he  said,  signifying  by  what  manner  of 
death  he  should  die.'  On  the  words  '  by  what  manner  of  death ' 
Alford  has  the  note  :  '  The  words  here  can  hardly  point  to  more 


'2C,  THE    KING    AXD    THE    KINGDOM:  [part  ii. 

than  the  external  circninsfcaiices  of  his  death  .  ,  St.  John  does  no': 
say  that  this  was  all  that  the  liftin.o-  up  meant,  but  that  it  was  its 
first  and  obvious  reference'  Nor  need  we  be  concerned  about  the 
interpretation  which  the  evangeUst  or  any  other  man  may  have  seen 
fit  to  attach  to  words  of  Jesus  used  on  another  occasion  ;  the  only 
question  is  as  to  the  sense  which  the  words  themselves  will  here 
Avari-ant.  That  death  by  crucifixion  involved  a  lifting  up  from  or 
out  of  the  earth  was  a  mere  collateral  fact,  which  might  be  indicated 
by  a  passing  reference,  but  which  cannot  be  accepted  as  a  reason  for 
attaching  the  idea  of  crucifixion  to  the  term  'lifted  up'  wherever  and 
Avhenever  it  may  occur.  Dismissing  any  doubt  or  difficulty  which 
might  arise  on  that  point,  we  have  siu)ply  to  ponder  the  expression 
as  it  stands,  '  When  ye  have  lifted  up  the  Son  of  man.'  The  title 
'  Son  of  man '  is  applied  by  Jesus  to  himself,  and  to  the  Messiah  ;  to 
himself  therefore  as  the  representative  of  humanity.  '  When  ye  have 
exalted  me  as  your  Messiah,  then  you  will  know  what  I  am  to  you, 
that  what  I  do  is  not  personal  to  myself,  that  what  I  teach  you,  J 
have  learned  from  the  heavenly  Father  : '  that  would  seem  to  be  the 
natural  and  proper  sense  of  this  saying  of  Jesus. 

But  though  his  own  people  as  yet  knew  and  received  him  not, 

roim^o  Jesus  had  no  feeling  of  loneliness  or  failure.  'And  he  that  sent  me 
is  with  me  ;  he  hath  not  left  me  alone.'  Rejected,  opposed,  scoffed 
at  by  men,  Jesus  was  doing  in  che  world  the  work  which  God  had 

„    '29      appointed  him.    '  For  I  do  always  the  things  that  are  pleasing  to  him." 
These  words  of  Jesus  were  not  without  efiect,  but  produced  con- 

^_  30  viction  and  faith  in  the  minds  of  many  of  those  present.  'As  he 
spake  these  things,  many  believed  on  him.'  To  these  new  converts 
Jesus  addressed  himself  specially.  He  told  them  that  the  test  of 
real  discipleship  consisted  in  a  constant  adherence  to  his  teaching. 

,,  31  '  Jtsus  said  therefore  to  those  Jews  which  had  believed  him,  If  ye 
abide  in  my  word,  then  are  ye  truly  my  disciples.'  Then  they  would 
gain  a   knowledge  of  the   truth,  and   the  truth  would  give   them 

„  s2  freedom.  'And  ye  shall  know  the  truth,  and  the  truth  shall  make 
you  free.'  The  freedom  of  which  he  spoke  was  spiritual ;  but  they 
did  not  take  his  words  in  that  sense.  They  prided  themselves  on 
descent  from  Abraham  ;  they   had  never  been  slaves  to  any  man  : 

,,  y:j  what,  then,  did  this  ofier  of  freedom  signify  ?  '  They  answered  unto 
him,  We  be  Abraham's  seed,  and  have  never  yet  been  in  bondage  to 
any  man  :  how  sayest  thou,  Ye  shall  be  made  free  ?  '  Jesus  solemnly 
reminded  them  that  there  was  a  moral  slavery,  and  that  every  sinner 

„  2'-  had  made  himself  the  slave  of  sin.  '  Jesus  answered  them,  Yerily, 
verily,  1  say  unto  you.  Every  one  that  committeth  sin  is  the  bond- 
servant of  sin.'  The  seed  of  Abraham  w-s  of  two  kinds  :  the  son  of 
the  bondwoman,  and  the  son  of  the  freewoman  ;  the  former  had  no 
permanent  inheritance  in  common  witli  the  latter,  who  alone  could 

„  ;;,',  claim  the  paternal  home.  'And  the  bondservant  abideth  not  in  the 
house  for  ever  :  the  sori  abideth  for  ever.'  Alford  says  :  '  I  believe, 
with  Stier  and  Bengel,  the  reference  to  be  to  Hagar  and  Ishmael, 
and  Isaac  :  the  dond,  and  the  free.  They  had  spoken  of  themselves 
as  the  seed  of  Abraham.  The  Lord  shews  them  that  there  may  be,  of 
that  seed,  tiro  Jcl/ids  ,-  the  son  properly  so  called,  and  the  slave.  The 
latter  does  not  abide  in  the  house  for  ever  :  it  is  not  his  right  nor 
his  position — "Cast  out  the  bondwoman  and  her  son."  "But  the 
sow  abideth  ever."'     Young's  literal  rendering  is  as  follows:  'But 


I'ART  H.|         A    I^TUDY    OF    THE    FOUR    GOSPELS.  i:7 

tlic  servant  rcmaineth  not  in  the  house  to  the  age,  the  Son  remaineth 
to  the  !)ge.'  Els  ton  oiona,  '  to  the  age,'  although  translated  '  ever,' 
signifies  no  more  than  tlie  full  term  of  life.  AVe  must  not  venture  to 
give  it,  here  or  elsewhere,  a  more  extended  meaning.  Although 
"bondslaves,  there  was  a  way  to  freedom  :  if  the  acknowledged  son 
and  heir  released  them  from  servitude,  no  one  could  entangl(!  them 
again  in  the  yoke  of  bondage.  '  If  therefore  the  Son  shall  make  you  N.;,,i,n:;o 
free,  ye  shall  be  free  indeed.'  The  fact  was  undeniable  that  they  were 
children  of  Abraham,  yet  none  the  less  they  were  seeking  the  life  of 
Jesus,  not  for  any  act  of  wrong  or  injustice  on  his  part,  but  simjjly 
because  his  expressed  opinions  diifered  from  their  own.  '  I  know  ,,  :;7 
that  ye  are  Abraham's  seed  ;  yet  ye  seek  to  kill  me,  because  my  word 
liath  not  free  course  in  you  (or,  hath  no  place  in  you).'  Inasmuch 
as  Jesus  spoke  only  from  actual  observation  and  knowledge  of  his 
Father,  they,  in  opposing  him,  revealed  an  antagonistic  parentage. 

*  1  speak  the  things  which  I  have  seen  with  my  Father  (or,  the      .,    ::s 
Father)  ;  and  ye  also  do  (or,  do  ye  also  therefore)  the  things  which 

ye  heard  from  your  (or,  the)  Fathei-.'  By  words  and  acts  aloue  could 
true  sonship  be  demonstrated  ;  be  they  whose  sons  they  might,  their 
deeds  proved  them  to  be  aliens  from  Jesus  and  his  Father.  The  force 
and  spii'it  of  this  saying  touched  them  not :  they  only  reiterated  the 
old,  parrot  cry,  that  they  claimed  descent  from  Abraham.  '  They  .,  :ii» 
answered  and  ^aid  unto  him,  Our  Father  is  Abraham.'  Jesus  would 
admit  only  one  kind  and  one  evidence  of  sonship, — identity  of  spirit 
and  of  action.  'Jesus  saith  unto  them,  If  ye  were  (Gr.  are)  Abra-  .,  .■;., 
ham's  children,  ye  would  do  the  works  of  Abraham.'  The  Revisers 
note  that  some  ancient  authorities  read  'ye  do'  for  'ye  would  do.' 
They  were  not  now  manifesting  the  patriarch's  spirit  or  fulfilling  the 
patriarch's  will.  '  But  now  ye  seek  to  kill  me,  a  man  that  hath  toid  .,  w 
you  the  truth,  which  I  heard  from  God:  this  did  not  Abraham.'  Let 
us  learn  to  cherish  this  description  of  Jesus  by  himself  :  'a  man  that 
hath  told  you  the  truth,  whicli  I  heard  from  God.'  There  are  many 
still  who  are  ready  to  accept  and  believe  in  him  under  that  aspect, 
and  they  have  here  the  justification  of  his  own  words  for  doing  so. 
Let  not  those  who  are  altle  to  take  a  higher  view  of  Jesus,  and  who 
can  rise  to  a  loftier  flight  of  faith,  condemn  or  despise  those  who 
simply  look  up  to  him  with  reverence  as  'a  teacher  sent  from  God.' 
The  remembrance  of  this  saying  of  Jesus,  his  own  portrait  of  himself 
held  forth  for  these  men's  regard,  would  have  sufficed  to  stifle  many 
an  anathema  in  the  act  of  utterance,  and  quench  many  a  fire  kindled 
by  religious  bigotry.  Jesus,  in  this  very  passage,  is  protesting  against 
the  si)irit  of  persecution.  Abraham  had  never  been  guilty  of  it ;  and 
they  who  now  sought  to  suppress  the  truth  by  killing  the  speaker, 
pro\ed  themselves  of  a  different  stock.  '  Ye  do  the  works  of  your  ^,  4i 
father.'  They  sought  to  evade  the  argument  by  going  behind  the 
obvious  meaning,  as  though  Jesus  were  attempting  either  to  impute 
the  stain  of  illegality  to  their  natural  birth,  or  to  intimate  that  they 
were  in  no  sense  children  of  the  God  and  common  Father  of  mankind. 

♦  'j'hey  said  unto  him,  We  were  not  born  of  fornication ;  we  have  one      .,     -ii 
Father,  even  God.'   Jesus  was  not  seeking  to  make  them  out  different 

from  other  men,  but  he  would  have  them  deal  with  realities  instead 
of  words.  The  fatherhood  of  God  was  no  meaningless  expression,  but 
denoted  community  of  will  and  spirit.     If  God  were  their  Father, 


28  THE    KISG    AND    THE    KINGDOM:  [part  ii. 

their  minds  would  coincide  with  His,  and  they  would  love  instead  of 

s,i,iiin4_'  hatino-  his  messenger,  'Jesus  said  unto  them,  If  God  were  your 
Father,  ye  would  love  me  :  for  I  came  forth  and  am  come  from  God.' 
Young  renders  literally:  'If  God  were  your  Father,  ye  would  have 
been  loving  me,  for  I  came  out  from  God,  and  am  come.'  The  verb 
oxcycliomai,  rendered  in  the  Authorised  Aversion  '  proceed  forth '  and 
by  the  Revisers  '  come  out,'  must  not  be  strained  to  any  theological 
sense.     It  was  a  word  in  common  use,  applied  to  any  ordinary  de- 

'..' Mat.  :;i  ])arture  from  one  place  to  another,  as  in  the  passage:  'But  they 
having  gone  out.'     Its  import  here  is  clear  from  the  following  words  : 

s  John  4:!  '  For  neither  have  I  come  of  myself,  but  he  sent  me.'  Taking  the 
^erse  in  its  entirety,  no  mere  man  could  ever  dare  to  say  such  tilings 
of  himself.     Here  again  we  find  the  declaration  of  Jesus  harmonising 

1  Joiin  14  with  the  opening  statement  of  the  evangelist :  'And  the  AVord  became 
flesh,  and  tabernacled  among  us  (and  we  beheld  his  glory,  glory  as 
of  the  only-begotten  from  the  Father).'  If  Jesus  then  came  as  God's 
messenger,  why  were  those  he  addressed  unable  to  comprehend  his 

s.joiiM  4:;  words  ?  '  Why  do  ye  not  understand  (or,  know)  my  speech  ? '  They 
claimed  to  be  of  the  household  of  God,  but  could  not  grasp  the  sense 
„  4:j  of  the  divine  language.  'Even  because  ye  cannot  hear  my  word.' 
Alford  explains  :  '  To  understand  a,  man's  speech, — as  here  used,  is 
literally  to  tmderstand  the  idiom  or  dialect  in  which  a  man  speaks,  his 
manner  of  speech ;  see  Matt.  xxvi.  7."),  where  the  same  word  is  used 
in  the  original.'  Tischendorf  and  Young  do  not  insert  the  italicised 
word  '  even,'  which  may  convey  a  wrong  idea.  Luther's  version  gives 
a  clear  meaning  :  '  Warum  kennet  ihr  denn  nieine  Sprache  nicht  ? 
Denn  ihr  konnet  ja  inein  Wort  nicht  horen.'  '  Why  then  do  ye  not 
know  my  speech  ?  For  indeed  ye  cannot  hear  my  word.'  The  verb 
tikoud,  rendered  '  hear,'  signifies  in  this  place,  and  often  elsewhere,  to 

IS  Mat.  I.-.  '  listen  to,'  as  in  the  passage :  '  If  he  shall  hear  thee.'  Their  inability 
to  comprehend  him  was  as  gross  as  though  he  spoke  an  unknown 
foreign  tongue  ;  and  it  was  evidence  of  the  fact  that  they  were  of  a 

s  j,,iiM  44  i-AY  different  parentage  and  mode  of  life.  '  Ye  are  of  your  father  the 
devil,  and  the  lusts  of  your  father  it  is  your  will  to  do.'  Instead  of 
'  it  is  your  will  to  do '  the  Authorised  Version  has  '  ye  will  do,'  which 
Alford  condemns  as  'wholly  inadequate  and  misleading  ,  .  .  The 
original  means,  your  will  is  to  do,  you  love,  or,  are  inclined  to  do.' 
Tischendorf  renders,  'ye  desire  to  do';  Young,  'ye  wish  to  do.' 
Having  named  the  devil,  tfesus  went  on  to  speak  of  him  as  of  one 
,.  44  whose  origin,  history  and  cliaracter  Avere  well  known.  '  He  was  a 
murderer  from  the  beginning,  and  stood  not  in  the  truth,  because 
there  is  no  truth  in  him.'  To  the  Avord  '  stood '  the  Revisers  have 
apijended  the  note :  '  Some  ancient  authorities  read  standeth.' 
Apart  from  that  fact,  Alford  renders  the  word  as  'standeth.'  He 
says  :  '  The  A.  V.  abode  is  ungrammatical,  the  original  word  being 
present  in  sense.'  Young  renders  :  '  In  the  truth  he  hath  not  stood.' 
Tischendorf  has.  '  and  stands  not  in  the  truth ' ;  but  there  is  nothing 
to  indicate  whether  his  adoption  of  the  word  '  stands '  arises  from 
difference  of  translation  or  of  version.  The  following  sentence  also 
„  44  is  open  to  uncertainty  in  translation  :  '  When  he  speaketh  a  lie,  he 
speaketh  of  his  own  :  for  he  is  a  liar,  and  the  father  thereof.'  This 
agrees  with  the  Authorised  Version,  the  Revisers  having  simply 
altered  '  of  it  '  to  '  thereof.'     But  thev  ffive  as  an  alternative  ren- 


I^\RT  II. J         A     STUnV    OF    TIIK    FOUR    (U)SrELS.  ±9 

derin<2; :  *  When  otic  speakcth  a  lie,  lie  spoakctli  of  his  own  :  for  liis 
father  also  is  a  h'ar.'  Alford  does  not  touch  upon  tliis  difference  of 
translation  ;  his  note  simply  broaches  the  question  whether  the  devil 
is  said  to  be  the  father  of  lies  or  of  liars.  Younji;  renders  :  '  When 
one  may  speak  falsehood,  of  his  own  he  speaketh,  because  lie  is  a 
liar — his  father  also.'  Tischendorf  renders  :  '  When  lie  speaks  lies, 
he  speaks  Ironi  his  own  nature  ;  for  he  is  a  liar,  and  so  is  his  father.' 
Samuel  Sharpc  renders  :  'When  any  one  speaketh  a  lie,  he  speaketh 
ufter  the  manner  of  his  kindred,  for  his  father  also  is  a  liar.'  We 
have  here  the  explanation  of  desus  himself  as  to  the  sense  in  which 
he  used  the  term  'father.'  The  word  conveys  two  ideas:  dsscent 
and  likeness.  .lesus  dwells  chietly  on  the  latter  ;  indeed,  he  assumes 
tliat  the  former  can  exist  (mly  in  connection  with  the  latter.  'Adam  .  inn.  :i 
.  .  begat  a  son  in  his  own  likeness,  after  his  image.'  That  is  the 
essential  idea  of  ]iarentage  ;  however  great  and  numerous  the  dif- 
ferences in  body  and  mind  between  father  and  child,  they  are  over- 
borne, put  ont  of  sight,  arc  as  nothing,  compared  with  the  manifold 
and  far  greater  similarities  of  nature.  That  like  begets  its  like  is 
the  universal  law,  with  man,  lirute,  bird,  tish,  trees,  plants :  any  great 
and  sudden  divergence  from  the  parental  type  is  a  physical  impossi- 
bility. Ascending  to  the  higher  platform  of  spiritual  life,  Jesus  insists 
ni)on  this  obvious  and  irrefragable  law.  No  bodily  diversities  have 
then  to  be  taken  into  account ;  there  is  absolutely  nothing  to  modify 
the  law  that  like  must  beget  its  like.  Jesus  speaks  as  having  cogni- 
zance of  spiritualities  beyond  our  ken,  and  he  seems  to  recognise  an 
action  of  spirit  upon  sjiirit,  and  powers  of  transformation  and  identi- 
tication  between  spii'its,  of  which  our  limited  earthly  experience  is 
ignorant  if  not  wholly  unconscious.  But  we  shall  not  err  in  taking 
the  lower  ground  of  metaphor  and  analogy,  and  tracing  out  the  mean- 
ing Jesus  sought  to  convey  to  our  minds  by  the  ligurative  term 
'  father.'  •  When  any  one  speaketh  a  lie,  he  speaketh  after  the 
manner  of  his  kindred  ;  for  his  father  also  is  a  liar.'  These  Jews  had 
claimed  kindred  with  Abraham:  'We  be  Abraham's  seed  .  .  .  Our 
father  is  Abraham.'  In  the  natural  sense  that  was  true  :  '  I  know 
that  ye  are  Abraham's  seed ' ;  but  in  the  spiritual  sense  it  was  false  : 
they  had  not  the  spirit  of  Abraham,  but  the  spirit  which  stooped  to 
actions  Abraham  would  have  scorned  to  do.     The  truth  held  good  : 

•  Ye  do  the  works  of  your  father ' :  only  the  spirit  which  had  begotten 
their  murderous  desires,  was  not  the  spirit  by  which  Abraham  Avas 
animated.  Let  us  not  overlook  the  fact,  that  in  seeking  the  life  of 
Jesus  these  men  had  no  personal  quarrel  against  him;  they  weic 
resolved  to  close  his  career  at  any  price,  simply  because  they  could 
not  otherwise  close  his  mouth,  and  they  deemed  his  teaching  heretical 
aud  dangerous.  What  Jesus  and  every  right-minded,  unprejudiced 
person  could  only  denounce  as  a  crime,  they  probably  regarded  as  a 
sacred  duty,  for  the  apostles  were  taught  to  anticipate  the  time  when 

•  whosoever  killeth  you  will  think  that  he  offereth  service  unto  God.'  ir,  joim  ■^ 
<  )n  that  point  of  the  discussion  there  could  be  no  agreement ;  these 

Jews  shifted  the  ground  of  argument,  and  urged  that  at  all  events 
•lesus  could  not  deny  them  the  common  claim  of  humanity  to  be 
children  of  one  heavenly  Father.  '  We  have  one  Father — God.'  This 
application  of  the  word  'father'  both  to  Abraham  and  to  God,  indi- 
cates that  the  term  was  understood  to  be  used  in  a  sense  not  strictly 


„       4V. 


30  THE    Kiya    AI\I)    THE    KINGEOM:  [part  ii. 

literal.  Jesus  took  up  their  challenge,  and  contended  that  they  had 
no  right  to  the  title  of  God's  children,  inasmuch  as  their  spirit  was 
hostile  to  His  will.  On  the  contrary,  they  were  doing  the  devil's 
work,  they  had  his  spirit,  they  were  his  children,  he  was  their  father  : 
to  say  any  one  of  these  things  was  to  imply  the  whole  of  them.  The 
act  manifests  the  spirit,  and  the  spirit  denotes  the  parentage.  Jesus 
spoke  from  the  first  to  the  same  efl'ect.  In  the  sermon  on  the  mount 
he  had  said  :  '  Love  your  enemies,  and  pray  for  them  that  persecute 
you  ;  that  ye  may  be  sons  of  yom-  Father  which  is  in  heaven.'  The 
likeness  would  constitute  the  sonship :  '  for  ho  maketh  his  sun  to  rise 
on  the  evil  and  the  good,  and  sendeth  rain  on  the  just  and  the  unjust.' 
The  evangelist  also  presents  the  matter  in  the  same  light :  '  But  as 
many  as  received  him,  to  them  gave  he  the  right  to  become  children 
of  God';  the  submissive,  obedient,  trustful  spirit  transforms  the 
!  natural  man  into  the  man  divine  :  'even  to  them  that  believe  in  his 
name  :  which  were  begotten,  not  of  bloods,  nor  of  the  will  of  the  flesh, 
nor  of  the  will  of  man,  but  of  God.'  The  new  birth,  which  theolo- 
gians have  shown  an  inclination  to  make  dependent  upon  and  myste- 
riously connected  with  the  rite  of  baptism,  Jesus  and  the  evangelist 
have  declared  to  be  contingent  upon  character.  On  the  other  hand, 
instead  of  this  God-like  transformation  and  uprising,  there  may  be 
a  course  of  devil-worship  and  degradation  ;  the  actions  of  the  life 
are  the  evidences  of  the  Spirit  who  rules  :  '  Ye  do  the  works  of  your 
father.' 

These  Jews  had  reached  a  state  of  mind  altogether  alien  from  the 
truth.  They  might  believe  a  lie,  but  they  would  not  believe  the 
truth.  '  But  because  I  say  the  ti'uth,  ye  believe  me  not.'  Could  any 
one  of  them  point  to  any  crime  in  the  life  of  Jesus  which  made  his 
evidence  untrustworthy  ?  '  Which  of  you  convicteth  me  of  sin  ?  ' 
The  alteration  by  the  Revisei  s  of  '  coavinceth '  into  '  convicteth ' 
was  anticipated  by  Young,  who  renders  :  '  Who  of  you  convicteth 
me  of  sin  ?  '  Tischendorf  renders  :  'Which  of  you  convicts  me  for 
sin  ? '  Alford  says  :  '  The  question  is  an  appeal  to  his  sinJessness  of 
life  as  evident  to  them  all,  as  a  pledge  for  his  truthfulness  of  word.' 
To  what  could  their  rejection  of  unimpeachable  evidence  be  attri- 

40  buted  ?  '  If  I  say  the  truth,  why  do  ye  not  beHeve  me  ?  '  It  must 
be  admitted  that  relationship  to  God  involved  reception  of  a  divine 

47  message.  '  He  that  is  of  God  heareth  the  words  of  God.'  And  from 
the  fact  that  they  refused  to  hear,  the  conclusion  must  be  drawn  that 

47  they  could  claim  no  relationship  to  God.  '  For  this  cause  ye  hear 
them  not.  because  ye  are  not  of  God.' 

In  ])roportion  to  the  solemn  earnestness  of  Jesus,  was  the  obtuse- 
uess  and  indiflerence  of  the  listeners.  They  answered  him  now  with 
a  scoffing  insinuation.  Was  he  not,  in  all  he  was  saying,  justifying 
their  previous  assumption,  that  he  was  a  heretic  from  the  Jewish 
faith,  and  impelled  to  his  teaching  by  some   misleading   demon  ? 

•4S  '  The  Jews  answered  and  said  unto  him,  Say  we  not  n-ell  that  thou 
art  a  Samaritan,  and  hast  a  devil  (Gr.  demon)  ? '     To  this  grave 

49  charge  Jesus  gave  a  dignified  and  calm  denial.  '  Jesus  answered,  I 
have  not  a  devil  (Gr.  demon).'  On  the  contrary,  by  word  and  deed 
lie  was  doing  honour  to  his  Father,  in  spite  of  the  dishonour  they 

4,,      were  casting'on  himself :  '  but  I  honour  my  Father,  and  ye  dishonour 

.50      me.'     Jesus  was  actuated  by  no  personal  ambition,     'But  I  seek  not 


PART  II.]         A    STUDY    OF    THE    FOVli    GOSPELS.  31 

mine  own  c,'lory.'  There  ■sviis  One  who  desired  to  see  liim  honoured, 
and  who  took  judicial  oversight  of  th(!  woids  and  acts  of  all.  '  'J'here  s  jaim  oo 
is  one  that  seeketh  and  jiidgeth,'  rendered  by  Young-,  'There  is  one 
who  is  seekiufj  and  judginj^;,'  Acceptance  of  the  teaching  of  Jesus 
involved  momentous  consequences.  In  his  accustomed  sok'mn  and 
cmpliatic  manner  he  declared  that  obedience  to  his  instructions 
wouki  ward  off  death.  '  Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  you,  If  a  man  „  f,i 
keep  my  word,  he  shall  never  see  de<itli.'  It  is  important  here  to 
take  the  literal  rendering  of  Dr.  Young,  'If  any  one  may  keep  my 
word,  death  he  may  not  see — to  the  age.'  The  sense  of  the  original 
is  l)ound  up  with  the  word  '  age,'  and  there  can  be  no  right  concep- 
tion of  the  passage  apart  from  that  term.  Even  in  the  translations 
there  is  no  escaping  from  it,  the  words  '  ever,  everlasting,  eternal,' 
heing  obviously  derived  from  the  Latin  Ibrm  of  'age,' — crvum,  ccfas. 
We  are  bound  to  take  the  words  of  Jesus  in  their  natuial  sense, 
without  either  underestimating  or  overstraining  their  significance. 
It  cannot  be  denied  that  the  word  'age  '  conveys  the  idea  of  liinita- 
I  ion  ;  it  denotes  a  certain  period,  however  indefinite  or  prolonged 
that  period  may  be.  On  the  other  hand,  it  appears  from  the  answer 
of  the  Jews  in  the  context  (v.  a^).  that  the  popular  notion  of  the 
expression  'age'  was  that  it  signified  a  vast  stretch  of  time, 
amounting  in  fact  to  perpetuity,  just  as  we  are  now  accustomed  to 
interpret  the  words  'ever'  and  'never.'  But  in  construing  this 
solemn  promise  of  Jesus,  we  must  not  take  up  the  random,  hasty, 
haphazard  interpretation  of  his  words  which  happens  to  be  the 
])opular  one.  We  must  seek  to  grasp  accurately  the  real  import  of 
every  phrase  and  word  he  used.  Let  us  be  sure  that  his  form  of 
expression  in  dealing  with  so  weighty  a  matter  was  wisely  and 
deliberately  chosen.  The  statement, 'he  shall  never  (in  no  wise — • 
•  Englishman's  Greek  Testament ')  see  death,'  is  at  once  defined,  en- 
larged and  restricted  by  the  addition — '  to  the  age.'  AYhat  is  an 
age  ?     The  word  denotes  a  fixed  period  of  human  existence. 

'  Thou  shalt  come  to  thy  grave  in  a  full  age,  ojoi.-^g 

Like  as  a  shock  of  coi'u  cometli  in  in  its  season.' 

'  Behold,  thou  hast  made  my  days  as  haudbreadths  ;  so  psa.  r. 

And  mine  age  is  as  nothing  before  thee.' 
"When  Jesus  assures  life  '  to  the  age,'  immunity  from  death  '  to  the 
age,'  he  is  simply  promising  that  nothing  shall  cut  short  the  allotted 
term  of  existence.     This  does  not  amount  to  a  declaration  of  im- 
mortality.    The  apostle  Paul  realised  a  far  more  extended  stretch  of 
time  than  an  'age,'  and  he  gave  expression  to  his  idea  by  using  the 
word  in  the  plural  'ages.'     'That  in  the  ages  to  come  he  might  2  E],],.  r 
shew  the  exceeding  riches  of  his  grace  in  kindness  toward  us  in 
Christ  Jesus.'     '  Unto  him  be  the  glory  in  the  church  and  in  Christ  3Epii.-n 
Jesus   unto   all   the   geueratitais   of  the  age   of  the   ages.'      '  The  1  ci. -jo 
mystery  which  hath  been  hid  from  the  ages  and  from  the  genera- 
tions.'    There  is  obviously  a  gradation  of  time  in  the  words  'genera- 
tions,' '  age,'  'ages.'     Jesus  did  not  see  fit  to  employ  tlie  plural  form. 
His  promise  was  personal,  applicable  to  each  individmil  :  '  If  any 
one  may  keep  my  word,  death  he  may  not  see — to  the  age.'    Obedience 
to  the  precepts  of  Jesus  will  ensure  the  prolongation  of  human  lif^i 
to  its  utmost  limit.      More  than   that  can  scarcely  lie  insisted  on 
from  these  words  of  his.     And  never  yet  in  the  world's  history  has 


3-2  THE    KING    ANI>    THE    KINGDOM:  [faut  ii. 

such  an  experience  been  granted  to  a  child  of  Adan'.  Human  life 
Avas  cut  sliort  by  the  first  transgression  ;  tiie  centuries  of  Mcthusehih 
were  but  a  shortened  career,  and  to  what  a  span  lias  man's  life 
dwindled  down  since  then  !  AVhen  our  second  Adam,  the  Man  irom 
heaven,  works  his  will  within  us,  the  law  of  the  spirit  of  life  will 
completely  rule  and  eu(H'mously  prolong  our  existence.  Is  not  such 
a  promise  enough  for  us  ?  It  is  too  much  for  this  world,  and  we 
wait  its  realisation  in  the  world  to  come.  If  Jesus  had  intended  to 
promise  absolute  immortality,  no  linguistic  difficulty  stood  in  the  way 
of  doing  so.  He  could  have  conveyed  that  idea  as  easily  as  the 
apostle  Paul  did  subsecpiently.     This  is  a  suitable  opportunity  for 

Rom.  r  considering  the  apostle's  teaching  on  this  subject.  '  To  them  that  by 
patience  in  well-doing  seek  for  glory  and  honour  and  incorruption, 
eternal  life,'  rendered  by  Young  :  '  To  them,  indeed,  who  in  patient 
continuance  of  a  good  work,  seek  glory,  and  honour,  and  incorrupti- 
bility— life  age-dui'ing.'  The  aim  is  the  highest  possible, — incor- 
ruptibility  or   inmKjrtality,   but   its  antecedent  and  preparati\e  is 

5  i.  Cor.  03  '  life  age-during.'  Again  :  '  For  this  corruptible  must  put  on  incor- 
ruption, and  this  mortal  must  put  on  immortality.'  This  the  apostle 
speaks  of  as  a  far-off  and  final  change,  which  will  be  granted  alike  to 
the  dead  and  the  living  'at  the  last  trump  :'  the  dead  (that  is,  the 
pre-deceased)  and  the  living  (that  is,  survivors  in  this  world)  will 
„  5-2  simultaneously,  instantaneously  be  transformed.  'We  shall  all  be 
changed,  in  a  moment,  in  the  twinkling  of  an  eye,  at  the  last  trumj) : 
for  the  trumpet  shall  sound,  and  the  dead  shall  be  raised  incorruptible, 
and  we  shall  be  changed.'  The  figure  of  '  the  last  trump '  implies 
previous  preparation,  all  arrangements  made,  every  individual 
watching  in  his  place,  the  innumerable  host  of  the  redeemed  duly 
instructed  how  and  when  to  act,  having  gone  through  prior  evolu- 
tions, and  waiting  but  the  signal  from  the  Captain  of  their  salvation 
to  attain  their  ultimate  })erfection, 

ii.  Tim.  10  Take  another  passage.  'Our  Saviour  Christ  Jesus,  who  abolished 
death,  and  brought  life  and  incorruption  to  light  through  the  gospel,' 
rendered  l)y  Young,  '  who  abolished  death,  but  who  enlightened  life 
and  immortality  through  the  good  news.'  Here  is  an  evident  dis- 
tinction between  life  and  immortality  :  the  latter  is  more  than  the 
former,  though  it  be  life  age-during.  Jesus  has  revealed  liotli,  but 
the  life  age-during  must  come  before  the  life  immortal. 

In  the  following  passage  the  sense  of  '  age '  and  'age-during,"  and 
the  higher  significance  of '  incorruptibility '  or '  immortality,'  come  out 

i.  Tim.  17  clcarly.  '  Now  unto  the  king  eternal  (Gr.  of  the  ages),  incor- 
ruptible, invisible,  the  only  (jod,  be  honour  and  glory  for  ever  and 
ever  (Gr.  unto  the  ages  of  the  ages).'     In  the  following  passage  also, 

i. Tim.  14— '  immortality '  is  held  to  be  a  divine  prerogative.  'Until  the 
^^  appearing  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ :  which  in  its  (or,  his)  own  times 
he  shall  shew,  who  is  the  blessed  and  only  Potentate,  the  King  of 
kings  (Gr.  them  that  reign  as  kings)  and  Lord  of  lords  (Gr.  them 
that  rule  as  lords) ;  who  only  hath  immortality,  dwelling  in  light 
unapproachable,  Avhom  no  man  hath  seen,  nor  can  see  :  to  whom 
be  honour  and  power  eternal.'  The  last  word  is  rendered  ])y 
Young  '  age-during  : '  the  ascription  of  praise  to  the  immortal  king, 
by  creatures  having  their  appointed  '  age,'  is  properly  described  by 
the  term  '  aae-durin"-.' 


PART  II.]         .1    STUDY    OF    THE    FOUR    GOSPFLS.  :y,i 

Another  t'onu  of  cxpressiou  has  been  nsed  to  convey  the  idea  of 
imniortaUty :  'after  the  power  of  an  endless  ((Jr.  indissoluble)  life.' 
Jesus,  however,  does  not  speak  of  incorruptibility,  immortality, 
endless  or  indissoluble  life,  but  of  '  life  a_i>-e-during,'  and  it  behoves 
us  to  weigh  his  words  with  care,  to  insist  to  the  utmost  upon  their 
proper  meaning,  but  not  presume  to  go  beyond  it. 

Tiic  solemn  asseveration  of  .Jesus  was  regarded  by  the  opposing 
Jews  as  evidence  of  madness,  or  worse.  'The  Jews  said  unto  him,  ,- 
Now  we  know  that  thou  hast  a  devil  (Or.  demon).'  They  ])roved  it, 
to  their  own  satisfiiction,  thus  :  The  best  and  greatest  men  had  died, 
yet  here  was  one  who  said  that  he  could  save  from  death.  Was  he, 
this  carpenter's  son,  a  greater  man  than  Abraham  and  all  the 
prophets  of  the  past  ?  Was  he  not  arrogating  to  himself  an  un- 
heard-of power  and  name  ?  'Abraham  is  dead,  and  the  prophets  ; 
and  thou  sayest.  If  a  man  keep  my  word,  he  shall  never  taste  of 
death.  Art  thou  greater  than  our  father  Abraham,  which  is  dead  ? 
and  the  prophets  are  dead  :  Avhom  makest  thou  thyself  ?  '  We  must 
again  take  Dr.  Young's  literal  rendering.  '  Now  have  we  known  that 
thou  hast  a  demon  :  Abraham  died,  and  the  prophets,  and  thou 
sayest,  If  any  one  may  keep  my  word,  he  shall  not  taste  of  death  to 
the  age  !  Art  thou  greater  than  our  liither  Abraham,  who  died  ?  the 
prophets  also  died  ;  whom  dost  thou  make  thyself  ? '  The  w'ords  of 
Jesus  were  '  death  he  may  not  see  to  the  age  ; '  the  Jews  ((uote  them 
as  *  he  shall  not  taste  of  death  to  the  age.'  Alford  explains  that  the 
expressions  were  synonymous  ;  '  To  bcliold  death  as  to  taste  of  death, 
is  a  Hebrew  way  of  speaking  for  to  die,  and  must  not  be  pressed  t(^ 
mean,  "shall  not  feel  (the  bitterness  of)  death,"  in  a  temporal  sense, 
as  Stier  has  done.'  Alford  observes  further :  '  The  death  of  the  liodtj 
is  not  reckoned  as  death,  any  more  than  the  life  of  the  hodij  is  life,  in 
our  Lord's  discourses ;  see  ch.  xi.  25,  2(!,  and  notes.  Both  -words 
have  a  deeper  meaning.'  That  is  only  another  way  of  saying  that 
Jesus'  promise  of  '  life  age-during '  is  to  be  interpreted  figuratively, 
and  not  according  to  the  natural  sense  of  the  words.  The  othei- 
passage  which  Alford  refers  to,  spoken  w'ith  reference  to  the  death 
and  resurrection  of  Lazarus,  assuredly  does  not  bear  out  the  idea  of 
a  figurative  interpretation.  It  is  evident  from  the  comment  of  these 
Jews  that  the  words  of  Jesus  were  taken  literally,  nor  are  w'c  at 
liberty  to  assume  that  Jesus  did  not  intend  them  to  be  so  under- 
stood. In  straining  after  '  a  deeper  meaning '  the  words  become 
meaningless. 

In  reply  to  the  criticism,  '  Whom  makest  thou  thyself  ? '  Jesus 
admitted  that  any  self-exaltation  or  self-praise  would  be  worthless. 
'  Jesus  answered,  If  I  glorify  myself,  my  glory  is  nothiug.'  His 
title  to  power  and  honour  was  his  Father's  gift :  '  it  is  my  Father 
that  glorifieth  me.'  And  that  they  might  not  repeat  their  question, 
'  Where  is  thy  Father  ? '  Jesus  added  :  '  of  whom  ye  say,  that  he  is 
your  Grod.'  Tischendorf,  following  the  Vatican  MS.,  renders,  '  our 
God.'  Alford  notes  :  '  Whom  ye  are  in  the  habit  of  calling  ipur 
God — i.e.,  the  God  of  Israel.  A  most  important  identification,  from 
the  mouth  of  our  Lord  himself,  of  the  Father  with  the  God  of  Israel 
in  the  Old  Testament.'  The  God  they  professed  to  worship,  they 
were,  in  truth,  ignorant  of.  '  And  ye  have  not  known  him.'  The 
Authorized  Version  has,  '  yet  ye.'     Alford  explains  :  '  The  sense  is, 


34  THJS    KING    AND    THE    KINGDOM:  [part  ii. 

of  Whom  ye  say  that  he  is  our  Grod,  and  (not  yd  noi'  Init)  know  him 
not.'  The  improved  rendering  of  the  Revisers  was  anticipated  here, 
as  generally  elsewhere,  by  Dr.  Young.  Jesus  had  the  knowledge 
which  they  lacked,  and  it  would  be  a  moral  impossibility  for  him  to 
deny  what  he  knew  to  be  true.  That  being  his  justification  for  not 
yielding  to  their  opinions  and  strenuously  upholding  his  own,  he  puts 
the  naked  truth  plainly  and  honestly  before  them.  '  But  I  know 
him ;  and  if  I  should  say,  I  know  him  not,  I  shall  1)C  like  unto  you, 
a  liar.'  Young  uses  the  past  teusc  :  '  But  [  have  known  him,  and  if 
I  say  that  I  have  not  known  him,  I  shall  be  like  you — a  liar.'  It 
must  not  be  supposed  that  in  making  so  positive  and  serious  a  charge 
there  was  anything  approaching  to  passion  in  the  utterance  of  Jesus. 
He  must  have  been  wholly  incapable,  even  under  the  greatest  pro- 
vocation, of  '  giving  the  lie '  in  any  offensive  sense.  He  spoke  more 
in  sorrow  than  in  anger,  and  we  may  assume  that  his  tone  Avas 
neither  vehement  nor  sarcastic.  There  must  have  been  a  ring  of 
sadness  and  compassion  in  his  accusing  words.  An  inconsiderate 
reader  is  apt  to  give  to  such  denunciations  an  emphasis  which  accords 
not  with  the  gentle  and  loving  spirit  of  Jesus.  Try  as  we  will  to 
realise  the  scene,  the  occasion,  and  the  surroundings  of  this  or  any 
other  particular  incident  recorded  by  the  evangelists,  there  must  still 
ever  be  a  risk  of  misconception  and  misrendering.  Our  own  ideas 
and  feelings  mingle  unconsciously  with  the  narrative,  and  often,  in 
repeating  the  sayings  of  Jesus,  we  express  ourselves  rather  thau  him. 
The  true  and  accurate  reading  of  the  gospels,  and  indeed  of  Scrip- 
ture generally,  depends  far  more  upon  the  depth  of  the  reader's 
insight  than  upon  the  clearness  of  his  voice  and  the  elegance  of  his 
delivery.  It  would  follow,  that  the  fullest  and  most  appreciative 
mind  would  best  interpret,  by  the  living  voice,  the  sense  of  Scripture, 
were  it  not  for  two  reasons  :  (1)  that  too  little  care  is  given  to  the 
cultivation  and  management  of  the  voice  ;  and  (2)  that  the  reverence 
felt  for  Scripture  deters  many  from  rendering  it  artistically,  as  they 
would  any  other  work  of  genius.  Yet  surely  the  public  reading  of 
the  Bible  not  only  justifies  but  claims  the  highest  efforts  of  our  best 
and  mcst  attractive  faculties  ;  in  proportion  to  our  appreciation  of 
its  pathos,  simplicity,  fulness,  graphicness,  sublime  conceptions,  mag- 
nificent imagery,  and  ennobling  doctrine,  should  be  our  care  to  make 
the  reading  worthy  of  the  writing.  Why  should  all  the  power  of 
expression  which  resides  in  the  human  voice  be  restricted  to  the 
singing  ?  Why  should  the  choristers  do  their  utmost  in  the  chanting, 
and  the  reader  perform  his  task  negligently,  apparently  with  cool 
indifference,  as  though  he  were  physically  if  not  mentally  incapable 
of  throwing  heart  and  soul  into  the  reading  ?  How  often  might 
depths  and  breadths  of  meaning  be  brought  out  by  judicious  inflec- 
tions and  pauses,  by  that  natural,  irrepressible  vibration  of  the  voice 
which  accompanies  the  expression  of  whatever  is  deeply  felt  and" 
realised  !  That  is  a  vastly  different  thing  from  what  is  known  and 
taught  as  the  grace  of  elocution.  No  teaching  can  give  the  hidden 
fire,  and  no  instruction  should  be  imparted  or  allowed  in  Scripture 
reading.  All  about  it  must  be  natural,  spontaneous  :  only  let  the 
mind  of  the  reader  be  upstrung  to  the  proper  pitch  of  earnest  and 
intensely  reverential  thought,  and  his  reading  will  become  naturally 
and  spontaneously  artistic.     There  must  be  no  copying  of  others  in 


PAKT  II.]         A    STUDY    OF    THE    FOUR    GOSPELS.  35 

niauuer  or  method,  no  straining  for  effect,  but  a  licarty  desire  to 
apprehend  tlie  full  Ri.<i;niticiince  of  tlie  narrative,  the  propliecy,  the 
teaching,  or  tiic  i)arable,  and  to  bring  out  its  meaning  with  force  and 
clearness.  Tlie  style  should  vary  with  the  SLil)ject-matter.  Many 
readers  adopt  one  manner  and  one  tone  for  everything,  being  always 
either  too  impassive  or  too  intensely  solemn.  Tlie  first  and  foremost 
aim  of  a  reader  should  be  to  feel  as  well  as  to  understand  ;  that  will 
enable  him  to  infuse  into  his  delivery,  and  impart  to  the  listeners, 
his  own  emotions  and  perceptions.  Such  an  effectual  I'eading  of  the 
Scriptures  would  convey  more  pleasure  and  profit,  intellectual  and 
moral,  than  any  sermon ;  the  well-knowu  words  which  now  fall 
barren  on  careless  ears,  would  then  become  'spirit  and  life,'  and  the 
interest  and  spirituality  thereby  generated  would  diffuse  tliemselves 
over  the  other  portions  of  the  service  of  prayer  and  praise.  Nothing 
of  that  can  be  hoped  for  so  long  as  a  negligent,  unimpassioned  style 
of  reading  prevails,  such  as  would  better  1)efit  the  perusal  of  some 
old  and  tedious  Act  of  Parliament. 

Jesus  repeated  his  assertion  with  respect  to  his  knowledge  of  God, 
'  But  I  know  him,  and  keep  his  word.'  Young  indicates  a  difference  s  join 
of  tense  :  '  But  I  have  known  Him,  and  His  word  I  keep.'  The 
expression  'keep  his  word,'  would  seem  to  mean,  as  in  verse  52,  'act 
according  to  his  will.'  Then,  alluding  to  their  question,  '  Art  thou 
greater  than  our  father  Abraham,  which  is  dead  ? '  Jesus  tells  them  : 
*  Your  father  Abraham  rejoiced  to  see  (or,  that  he  should  see)  my 
day  ;  and  he  saw  it,  and  was  glad.'  This  is  rendered  by  Tischendorf : 
■  Your  father  Abraham  exulted  that  he  might  see  my  day  :  and  he 
saw  and  was  glad.'  Young  re^•erses  the  position  of  the  words 
'  rejoiced  '  and  '  was  glad  : '  '  Abraham,  your  father,  was  glad  that  he 
might  see  my  day  ;  and  be  saw,  and  rejoiced.'  The  patriarch  had 
rejoiced  in  being  privileged  both  to  anticipate  and  to  behold  the  day 
of  Jesus.  Alford  says  :  '  What  is  the  meaning  of  J///  day'.^  Certainly, 
the  day  of  Christ's  appearance  in  the  flesh.'  That  seems  to  be  the 
only  possible  interpretation.  It  agrees  with  the  opening  words  of 
this  discourse  of  Jesus :  '  I  am  the  light  of  the  world.'  It  is 
corroborated  by  the  revelation  of  Moses  and  Elijah  upon  the  mount 
conferring  with  Jesus,  who  now  declares  that  Abraham  had  maui- 
fested  the  same  interest  in  his  career.  It  is  all  very  mysterious  to  us, 
'  who  are  but  of  yesterday,  and  know  nothing,  because  our  days  upon  sjoi,i 
earth  are  a  shadow.'  Jesus  reveals  matters  which  had  come  to 
his  knowledge  in  a  prior  state  of  existence,  in  another  world  than 
ours  :  he  claims  acquaintance  with  the  God  of  the  Jews,  and.  with  tlie 
father  of  their  nation.  And  in  all  this  there  is  nothing  intrinsically 
improbable  :  a  life  elsewhere  is  as  credible  as  this  life  is  certain  ; 
a,  life  prolonged  through  centuries,  in  what  respect  is  that  more 
marvellous  than  a  lif^i  prolonged  through  years  ?  And  that  the 
loftiest  Being  in  the  universe  should  be  known  by  Another  claiming 
fellowship  with  Him,  that  our  progenitor,  translated  to  a  higher 
sphere,  should  take  an  interest  more  or  less  active  in  mundane 
affairs,  is  a  rational  belief  when  based  on  revelation,  although  it  could 
not  be  evolved  from  man's  inner  consciousness. 

The  criticising  hearers  of  Jesus  gave  no  credence  to  his  assertion. 
He  stood  before  them,  walked  among  them,  as  an  ordinary  man.  Jt 
was  their  humour  to  scoff  at  his  woi'ds,  rather  than  to  ponder  them. 

D   2 


36  THE    KIXG    AND    THE    KINGDOM:  [part  ir. 

s  John  57  '  The  Jews  therefore  said  unto  him,  Thou  art  not  yet  fifty  years  old, 
and  hast  thou  seen  Abraham  ?  '  The  conce])tion  of  a  prior,  heavenly 
origin  and  existence  did  not  enter  into  their  minds.  Jesus  now 
„  js  solemnly,  plainly  and  unmistakably  declared  the  fact.  '  Jesus  said 
unto  them,  Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  you.  Before  Abraham  was  (Gr. 
Avas  born),  I  am.'  The  Tauchnitz  edition  has  the  following  exce]i- 
tional  note  :  '  Translate,  Before  Abraham  was  born,  1  am.'  That  is 
the  rendering  of  Tischendorf.  Young,  however,  renders :  '  Before 
Abraham  came — I  am.'  Samuel  Sharpe  :  '  I  was  before  Abraham 
was  born.'  Luther  :  '  Ehe  denn  Abraham  ward,  bin  ich.'  '  Before 
Abraham  was  (or,  became),  am  I.'  Alford  prefers :  '  Before  Abraham 
was  made,  I  am.'  The  verb  in  the  original  is  (linomai,  which  is 
defined  :  to  become,  to  happen  :  to  be  born  :  to  be.'  Alford  adds  the 
note  :  '  As  Liicke  remarks,  all  unbiassed  explanation  of  these  words 
must  recognise  in  them  a  declaration  of  the  essential  prse-existence 
of  Christ.'  That  truth  was  a  natural  inference  from  the  previous 
portion  of  the  discourse,  and  the  emphatic  asseveration  of  Jesus 
places  it   beyond  question.     The  word  of  Jesus  himself  stands  in 

iJoiini,-2  confirmation  of  the  evangelist's  opening  of  this  gospel:  'In  the 
beginning  was  the  Word,  and  the  WordAvas  with  (}od,  and  the  Word 
Avas  God.     The  same  was  in  the  beginning  with  God.' 

The  saying  of  Jesus  found  no  place  in  the  minds  of  the  listeners. 
Exasperated  beyond  measure,  they  Avere  on  the  point  of  pelting  hiiu 
with   stones,  and   Avould  have   done  so,  had  he  not  in  some   way 

s  John  09  concealed  himself.  '  They  took  up  stones  therefore  to  cast  at  him  : 
but  Jesus  hid  himself  (or,  was  hidden).'  It  must  not  be  assumed 
that  this  attempt  at  stoning  had  a  judicial  character,  or  that  the 
death  of  Jesus  Avas  the  object  of  the  Avould-be  stone  throwers.  It 
was  a  sudden,  unauthorised  outburst  of  popular  frenzy,  not  in  any 
way  resembling  the  stoning  of  Stephen,  who,  after  arraignment,  was 

7  Acts  js      '  cast  out  of  the  city '  and  deliberately  put  to  death  in  the  presence  of 

ii  Acts  -20  '  Avitnesses,'  Saul  '  standing  by,  and  consenting,  and  keeping  the 
garments  of  them  that  slew  him.'  The  habit  of  throwing  stones  at 
earnest-minded  preachers  and  reformers  Avould  seem  to  have  been  a 
favourite   pastime   of   the   intolerants  of  those  days,  who,   on   one 

14  Acts  111  occasion,  persuaded  the  multitude  to  stone  Paul,  and  afterwards 
dragged  him  out  of  the  city,  supposing  that  he  AA^as  dead,  .lesus  now 
stood  in  the  same  danger,  and  how  he  escaped  is  not  clear,  especially 
as  there  is  much  uncertainty  in  the  various  readings.     The  Autho- 

s John 5!)  rised  Version  stands  :  'But  Jesus  hid  himself,  and  went  out  of  the 
temple,  going  through  the  midst  of  them,  and  so  passed  by.'  The 
two  oldest  MSS.  stop  at  the  Avord  '  temple,'  and  the  Revisers  have 
done  the  same,  adding  the  footnote  :  '  Many  ancient  authorities  add 
and  going  through  the  midst  of  them  went  his  wag,  and  so  jyassed  hgS 
Alford  observes  :  '  There  does  not  appear  to  l)e  any  miraculous  esca})e 
intended  here,  although  certainly  the  assumption  of  one  is  natural 
under  the  circumstances.  Jesus  was  probably  surrounded  by  His 
disciples,  and  might  thus  hide  himself.'  That  is  a  fair  interpretation 
of  the  Avords,  '  hid  himself,  andAvent  out  of  the  temple,  going  through 
the  midst  of  them,  and  so  passed  by.'  The  only  way  of  hiding  in  a 
friendly  crowd  Avould  be  by  stooping  down,  those  about  him  making 
a  passage,  so  that  Jesus  could  reach  the  edge  unrecognised,  and  Avalk 
away.     Such  a  mode  of  retreat  would  not  be  dignified,  but  it  was 


PART  II.]         A    STUDY    OF    THE    FOUR    GOSPELS.  37 

hotter  so  tliiin  that  bis  incensed  enemies  should  resort  to  violence, 
la  some  way,  at  all  events,  Jesus  either  'hid  himself  or  'was 
hidden,'  and  so  escaped. 

In  verse  31  it  was  stated  that  Jesus  began  his  discourse  to  '  those 
Jews  which  had  believed  him.'  Yet  immediately  upon  his  first 
observation  we  find  them  questioning,  doubting,  arguing,  shnwing 
resentment  at  his  teaching,  and  at  last  (verse  48)  attacking  his 
reputation.  Jesus  was  accustomed  to  be  treated,  more  or  less,  in  that 
way.  This  may  be  taken  to  indicate  the  fact  that  it  was  no  custom 
of  "the  Jews  to  listen  in  silence  to  their  religious  teachers.  Probably 
Jesus  liimself  committed  no  innovation  when,  at  the  age  of  twelve 
years,  he  was  found  'sitting  in  the  midst  of  the  teachers,  both' 
hearing  them,  and  asking  them  questions.'  The  liberty  he  thus 
claimed  for  himself,  he  freely  allowed  to  others.  Indeed,  he  seems  to 
have  encouraged  the  fullest  questioning,  and  often  provoked  criticism 
hy  his  outspoken  sentiments,  always  answering  carefully  and  thoroughly 
any  argument  brought  against  him.  The  discourses  to  Nicodemus, 
to  the  Samaritan  woman  at  the  well,  and  to  his  twelve  apostles  at 
various  times,  show  this  custom  under  its  most  favourable  aspect. 
Jesus  never  resented,  but  ever  welcomed  discussion  of  lu's  teaching, 
although  the  criticisms  were  generally  hostile.  An  example  of  this  is 
to  be  found  in  the  (Jth  chapter  of  John.  The  multitude  is  there 
represented  as  repeatedly  putting  questions,  in  fact  carrying  on  an 
argument  with  Jesus.  From  the  consecutiveness  of  the  narrative  it. 
is  evident  that  certain  spokesmen  of  the  multitude  must  have  been 
selected,  the  discussion  being  carried  on  with  a  closeness  and  accuracy 
of  reasoning  not  otherwise  possible.  This  example  is  very  striking 
when  we  bear  in  mind  the  social  status  of  the  multitude.  It  was 
composed  of  persons  to  whom  a  full  and  satisfying  meal  was  a  matter 
of  consequence,  a  thing  to  be  eagerly  desired  ;  for  Jesus  told  them  : 
'  Ye  seek  me,  not  because  ye  saw  signs,  but  because  ye  ate  of  the  < 
loaves,  and  were  filled.'  Moreover,  the  discourse  was  delivered  in 
a  place  set  apart  for  religious  worship  and  teaching,  '  in  the  syna- 
gogue,' which  may  be  taken  as  fairly  representative  of  our  churches 
and  chapels.  All  this  is  quite  opposed  to  the  mode  of  religious 
teaching  which  now  prevails.  Children  are  often  taught  theology  at 
an  early  age,  and  through  very  rigid  formulas,  perhaps  neces:^arily  so, 
the  subjects  dealt  with  being  above  the  competence  and  compre- 
hension of  the  infant  mind,  so  tb.at  catechisms  must  be  learned  by 
rote,  the  tremendous  and  supernatural  character  of  the  dogmas 
therein  enunciated  finding  no  foothold  in  a  child's  nature,  and  being- 
only  realisable,  if  remembered  at  all,  in  the  maturity  of  manhood. 
Religious  instruction  is  bestowed  upon  adults  in  the  same  authorita- 
tive, unchallenged  manner.  We  are  accustomed  to  listen  in  submis- 
sive silencG  to  sermons  from  the  pulpit :  many  preachers  seem  to 
have  a  conviction,  not  that  they  are  divinely  taught,  but  that  they 
have  been  divinely  appointed  to  teach.  Xo  sign  of  criticism  or 
dissent  must  be  betrayed  by  the  hearers,  who  are  sometimes  warned 
against  inattention,  as  though  it  were  a  sin,  and  forbidden  even  to 
discuss  the  sermon  afterwards,  as  though  all  comment,  unless  it 
happens  to  be  favourable,  on  the  discourse,  were  a  mocking  of  sacred 
subjects.     What  are   the   results  ?     We  have  form  without  spirit ; 


38  THE    KlXa    AND    THE    KINGDOM:  [part  ii. 

doctrines  which  weak  and  plastic  minds  bow  down  before  with 
reverence,  but  which  hard-lieaded  men,  accustomed  to  free,  honest, 
independent  thought,  treat  either  with  scorn  or  indifference.  The 
undemonstrative  silence  of  a  congregation  would  be  a  terrible  thing 
to  preachers,  had  they  not  become  habituated  to  it.  To  go  on 
preaching,  sentence  after  sentence,  for  an  hour  at  a  time,  and  that 
week  after  week  for  years  together,  and  never  be  able  to  glean,  by 
word  or  look,  the  slightest  intimation  as  to  the  effect  produced  on  the 
great  majority  of  the  hearers,  that,  rightly  viewed,  must  be  no  small 
trial  to  a  Christian  minister.  No  wonder  he  sometimes  strives  to 
break  through  that  awful  monotony,  catches  at  signs  of  languor  and 
mind-wandering,  and  rebukes  his  cougi'egation  sharply,  finds  fault 
with  a  smile  here,  a  whisper  there,  a  tendency  to  nod  everywhere,  and 
bewails  occasionally  the  strange  and  startling  tact  that  his  most 
solemn  exhortations  and  invitations  produce  apparently  no  effect  on 
the  majority  of  his  flock.  All  men,  clergymen  among  them,  must 
reap  as  they  have  sown.  The  claim  to  authoritative  teaching,  which 
sets  itself  above  criticism  and  practically  denies  the  right  of  reply,  is 
the  surest  way  to  estrange  the  sympathy  of  those  to  whom  such 
teaching  is  addressed.  There  can  be  no  bond  of  intellectual  union 
between  minister  and  people,  on  such  conditions.  He  cannot  expect 
to  act  the  part  of  a  potter,  nor  will  they  submit  to  be  moulded  as  clay 
in  his  hands.  Be  his  ideas  and  pretensions  as  an  ordained  minister 
of  the  gospel  what  they  may,  he  stands  none  the  less  a  mere  man 
among  fellow  m.en,  and  should  seek  to  submit  his  views  to  the  judg- 
ments, the  criticisms,  the  questionings,  which  are  necessardy  gene- 
rated in  the  minds  of  intelligent  hearers.  They  may,  indeed,  through 
custom  or  indifference,  be  content  to  lisbeu  in  silence,  but  only 
in  one  way,  by  mutual  argument  and  exchange  of  views,  can  their 
minds  and  hearts  become  satisfied,  and  the  Truth  prevail.  As 
it  is,  there  is  a  great  gulf  fixed  between  ministers  and  jDCople,  none 
the  less  formidable  and  deplorable  because  it  is  more  real  than 
apparent.  The  courtesies  of  social  life  conceal  it  partly  ;  as  does  also 
the  estrangement  springing  from  opposed  ideas.  The  more  frequently 
such  ideas  are  repeated  by  the  pastor,  and  listened  to  in  sullen  oi- 
contemptuous  silence  by  the  flock,  the  wider  grows  the  breach 
between  them,  albeit  there  may  be  nothing  to  indicate  the  sad  and 
solemn  fact.  Some  few  among  the  hearers,  who  may  be  gifted  with 
an  uncommon  share  of  intellectual  energy,  and  who  are  led  to  turn  it 
towards  the  study  of  the  New  Testament,  may  hammer  out  a  theology 
for  themselves,  and  find  at  the  fountain-head  the  teaching  and  com- 
fort their  souls  cra\-e  :  but  where  can  those  persons  turn,  whose  souls 
rebel  against  the  preaching  so  pertinaciously  and  positively  reiterated, 
but  who  either  have  not  enough  mental  capacity  to  expose  its 
fallacies,  or  Avho  turn  with  disgust  from  theological  doctrines  so 
handled  and  enforced  ?  They  naturally  take  refuge  in  the  realities  of 
life,  its  business,  its  ambitions,  in  anything  and  everything  except 
that  patient  and  ^rapt  attention  which  to  every  religious  teacher 
must  be,  as  it  was  to  Jesus,  the  '  one  thing  needful.'  Undoubtedly 
there  are  exceptions :  congregations  reverential,  submissive,  interested, 
docile,  swayed  by  a  minister  exercising  real  powei\  '  By  their  fruits 
ye  shall  know  them.'  Does  the  result  amount  to  this  :  that  church 
services  are  better  attended,  prayers  more  frequent,  the  Communion 


I'ARTii.]  A     HTbDY    OF    THE    hOUU    <U)Si'ELS.  :\\) 

table  crowded,  tlio  c])ildrcn  catechised  ?  ( !ood,  good,  good,  a  tlioiiHand 
times  good,  if  you  will  :  religious  fervour  in  any  form  is  better  than 
callousness  of  heart,  and  earnestness  uf  l)elief  and  hope  nuist  help 
forward  morality,  down  even  to  the  vagaries  of  the  Sahation  Army. 
Hut  what  about  the  upgrowth  of  independent  thought,  the  clash  of 
mind  witli  mind,  the  play  of  intellectual  life  and  vigour,  the  sjiirit  of 
enquiry,  which  are  as  essential  to  the  continuance  and  development 
of  Christianity  as  to  everything  else  in  the  gradual  progression  of 
humanity  ':!  These  are  greater  matters,  though  orthodoxy  cares  not 
for  them,  and  ritualism  aims  at  something  different.  The  question  is 
this  :  Shall  adults  continue  to  receive  religious  teaching,  as  well  as 
children  ?  If  so,  can  it  be  wise  and  right  tluit  they  should  receive  Id 
in  the  same  manner  as  children, — in  absolute,  submissi\e  silence  ? 
«[esus  did  not  so  teach,  neither  was  he  so  listened  to.  Well  was  it 
for  his  cause,  though  ill  for  him,  well  was  it  for  the  woi'ld  to  remotest 
^iges,  that  the  religious  teaching  of  the  Jews  was  thus  fundamentally 
■different  from  that  prevailing  tlu'oughout  Christendom.  Had  Jesus 
been  doomed  to  preach  to  congregations  which  never  dared  to  criti- 
cise, to  enquire,  to  express  doubt,  to  speak  out  their  own  opinions,  to 
<;avil  even,  think  you  that  his  sermons  would  have  produced  the  effect 
they  did  ?  There  is  r.'ason  to  su])pose  that  he  gave  no  latitude  to 
criticism  beyond  what  was  common  in  those  days  ;  we  are  told,  on 
the  contrary,  that  his  tone  was  more  positive  than  that  to  which  the 
people  had  been  accustomed :  '  And  it  came  to  pass,  when  Jesus  v  Mat.  js,  -jn 
ended  these  words,  the  multitudes  were  astonished  at  his  teaching : 
for  he  taught  them  as  one  having  authority,  and  not  as  their  scribes.'' 
And  as  the  apostles  preached  from  synagogue  to  synagogue,  the  same 
measure  was  meted  out  to  them  as  bad  been  to  their  Master  :  their 
■words  found  acceptance  or  rejection  according  to  the  impression  they 
were  able  to  produce  on  the  minds  of  the  hearers.  There  was  no 
such  thing  in  those  days  as  passive  listening  in  compulsory  dumbness. 
Follow  the  career  of  the  first  preachers,  as  they  went  from  place  to 
place  :  the  synagogues  were  always  centres  of  intellect,  of  thought,  of 
•debate,  albeit  error  and  blind  orthodoxy  often  gained  the  ultimate 
physical  victory,  as  in  the  case  of  8ti;phen  :  '  Buti  there  arose  certain  cAitsu 
■of  them  that  were  of  the  synagogue  called  of  the  Libertines,  and  of 
the  Cyrenians,  and  of  the  Alexandrians,  and  of  them  of  Cilicia  and 
Asia,  disputing  with  Stephen.  And  they  were  not  able  to  withstand 
the  wisdom  and  the  S})irit  by  which  he  s])ake.'  'They  came  toirActsi,^ 
Tliessalonica,  where  was  a  synagogue  of  the  Jews  :  and  Paul,  as  his 
custom  Avas,  went  in  unto  them,  and  for  three  sal)bath  days  reasoned 
"with  them  from  the  scriptures.'  Tlie  reasoning  was  not,  in  those 
days,  all  on  one  side,  the  pastor  arguing  from  the  pulpit,  and  the 
sheep  forbidden  to  utter  even  one  responsive  bleat.  'They  .  .  came  1 3 Acts  14, 
to  Antioch  of  Pisidia  ;  and  they  went  into  the  synagogue  on  the 
sabbath  day,  and  sat  down.  And  after  the  reading  of  the  law  and 
the  prophets,  the  rulers  of  the  synagogue  sent  unto  them,  saying, 
Brethren,  if  ye  have  any  word  of  exhortation  for  the  people,  say  on.' 
We  have  changed  all  that.  But  has  the  change  been  wise  and  bene- 
Jicial  ?     Is  it  well  for  the  people  ?     Is  it  well  for  the  priest  ? 

Opposition  to  the  ministry  of  Jesus  came  from  various  quarters. 
IVe  have  seen  that  when  he  did  begin  to  gain  intluence  over  men,  it 


40  TEE    KIXG    AND    THE    KINGDOM:  [part  ii. 

Avas  sometimes  lost  iramcdiatelj,  on  Lis  continuing-  to  address  them. 
His  trial  took  at  one  time  a  domestic  turn.  His  '  friends  '  arrived  at 
the  conclusion  that  he  was  going-,  or  had  gone,  out  of  his  mind.  His 
marvellous  statements  about  himself,  his  influence  oxer  men  as  the 
giver  of  age-during  life,  and  his  pre-existence  to  Abraham,  coupled 
with  the  slander  about  demoniacal  possession  circulated  by  his  oppo- 
nents, may  have  led  to  that  conclusion.  It  was  known  that  enormous 
crowds  were  attracted  to  him,  and  that  Jesus  and  those  with  him 
were  occupied  without  intermission.  The  result  of  a  friendly  council 
would  seem  to  have  been  that  some  kind  of  restraint  should  be  exer- 

.iMikjii. J!  ciscd  over  him.  'And  the  multitude  cometh  together  again,  so  that 
they  could  not  so  much  as  eat  bread.  And  when  his  ft-iends  heard 
it,  they  went  out  to  lay  hold  on  him  :  for  they  said.  He  is  beside  himself.' 
His  supernatural  jiower  of  exorcism  was  turned  by  his  enemies  into  an 

..  •.'■_'  argument  which  pointed  in  the  same  direction.  '  And  the  scribes 
which  came  down  from  Jerusalem  said,  He  hath  Beelzebub,  and.  By 
(or,  in)  the  prince  of  the  devils  (Gr.  demons)  casteth  he  out  the 
de\'ils  (Gr,  demons).'  Matthew  gives  a  detailed  account  of  what  led 
tliem  to  make  the  charge.  A  demoniac  who  was  both  blind  and 
dumb  was  brought  to  be  cured  by  Jesus.  The  cure  extended  to  the 
infirmities  of  blindness  and  deafness,  to  the  amazement  of  all  be- 

Mat.  •-••-'.  •-'.]  holders.  '  Then  was  brought  unto  him  one  possessed  with  adcA'il  (or, 
a  demoniac),  blind  and  dumb  :  and  he  healed  him,  insomuch  that  the 
dumb  man  spake  and  saw.  And  all  the  multitudes  were  amazed.' 
Tjuke  appears  not  to  have  known  about  the  blindness,  for  he  does  not 

Lukf  14  mention  it.  '  And  he  was  casting  out  a  de\il  (Gr.  demon)  which  mis 
dumb.  And  it  came  to  pass,  when  the  devil  (({r.  demon)  was  gone 
out,  the  dumb  man  spake  ;  and  the  multitudes  marvelled.'  The 
recovery  of  speech  would  naturally  be  more  manifest  to  the  crowd 
than  the  recovery  of  sight.  All  could  mark  his  pi'evious  silence,  and 
hear  his  utterances  after  the  cure,  but  those  only  wlio  came  near,  and 
had  an  opportunity  of  close  investigation,  w'ould  ascertain  the  fact  of 
his  restored  vision.  The  discrepancy  in  the  narratives  indicates  an 
independent  source  of  information. 

The  wonder  of  the  multitude  led  them  to  debate  the  questioii 
whether  the  ability  of  Jesus  to  perform  so  great  a  miracle,  did  not 
prove  him  to  be  the  expected  Jewish  Messiah,  for  Matthew  adds  : 

iiat.L'-'.js '  And  said,  Is  this  the  Son  of  I)a\id  ?'  When  the  Pharisees  heard 
that  idea  expressed,  they  took  upon  themselves  to  counteract  it,  by 
asserting  that  the  miracle  should  be  regarded  as  evidence  of  a  compact 

.,  -4  l)etween  Jesus  and  the  ruling  spirit  of  all  demons.  '  But  when  the 
Pharisees  heard  it,  they  said.  This  man  doth  not  cast  out  devils  (Gr. 
demons),  but  by  (or,  in)  Beelzebub  the  prince  of  the  devils  (Gr, 
demons).'  We  have  seen  that  Mark  attributed  that  slanderous 
assertion  to  '  the  scribes  which  came  down  from  Jerusalem.'  The 
scribes  and  Pharisees  were  constantly  associated  in  opposition  tt^ 
flesus.    Luke  appears  not  to  \m\e  know  u  who  were  the  authors  of  the 

I. Ilia  1.-.  calumny,  for  he  speaks  vaguely,  '  But  some  of  them  said.  By  (or,  In) 
Beelzebub  the  prince  of  the  devils  (Gr.  demons)  casteth  he  out  devils 
((i!r.  demons).'  Luke,  howe\cr,  records  the  fact,  omitted  by  Matthew 
•and  Mark,  that  this  suggestion  led  to  another.     Jesus  was  urged  to 

„  Hi  disprove  the  accusation  by  giving  some  sign  out  of  heaven.  'And 
others,  tempting  him,  sought  of  him  a  sign  from  (out  of — -Young) 


I'AKT  II.]         A    STUDY    OF    THE    FOUR    GOSPELS.  41 

liL'u\'cn.'      Jesus   beiiij?    cognizant   of    what    was    in    their   minds, 
endeavoured  to  convince  them  by  argument.    '  But  he,  knowing  tlieir  n  i.i.uc  17 
thoughts,   said   unto   them  .  .  '.'  Tliis    stands   in   Matthew:   '  And  u  M„t.  25 
Iviiowing  their  thoughts  he  said  unto  them  .  .  .'  It  is  to  be  inferred 
from  the  narrati\  e  tliat  tiic  charge  of  Satanic  agency  was  not  launched 
forth  in  the  hearing  of  Jesus,  but  that  he  was  intuitively,  whether 
supernaturally  or  not  wc  cannot  Aenture  to  say,  aware  of  it.     The 
demand  of  a  sign  out  of  heaven  was  sufficient  to  show  what  was  passing 
in  their  minds.    From  Mark's  iiarrative  it  api)ears  that  Jesus  and  his 
accusers  were  not  standing  face  to  face,  but  were  some  distance  apart, 
for  we  are  told,  'And  lie  V^allcd  them  unto  him,  and  said  unto  them  ;i  .Murk  jij 
in  parables  .  .  .'  His  usual  figurative  teaching  had  on  this  occasion 
a  special  application  to  what  had  just  happened.     Every  community, 
large  or  small,  be  it  a  nation,  a  city,  or  a  family,  can  only  be  held 
together  by  unity  of  purpose.     National  rebellion  and  social  anarchy 
are  synonymous  ;  tumults  among  fellow  citizens  lead  to  destruction 
of  property  and  business  ;  and  feuds  in  a  family  must  disorganize 
and  eventually  In-euk  up  the  home.     '  Every  kingdom  divided  against  u  Mat.  -.. 
itself  is   brought   to   desolation  ;  and  every  city  or   house   divided 
against  itself  shall  not  stand.'     Luke  does  not  mention  '  every  city,' 
but  adds  to  the  first  clause  of  the  verse,  '  and  a  house  divided  against  u  i.uke  17 
a  house  falleth  (or,  and  house  falleth  upon  house).'     Mark's  record  is 
the  same  in  sense,  although  differing  somewhat  in  words.     In  the 
accounts  of  our  Lord's  sayings  we  constantly  meet  with  such  varia- 
tions, which  obviously  must  have  arisen  from  defects  in  the  memory 
or  notes  of  the  first  or  subsequent  reporters.     '  And  if  a  kingdom  be  3  Ma.k  -n 
divided  against  itself,  that  kingdom  cannot  stand.     xVnd  if  a  house 
he   divided   against   itself,  that  house  will   not  be   able  to   stand.' 
Matthew  and'^Lnke  apply  to  the  'kingdom'  the  expression  '  brought 
to  desolation.'     Luke  alone  applies  to  the  '  house  '  the  word '  falleth.' 
Mark   adopts   both   for  the   'kingdom'  and  the  'house'  the  term 
'  stand.'     He  also  prefaces  the  illustration  wnth  the  question,  '  How      ..    -^^ 
can  Satan  cast  out  Satan  ? '     The   drift   of  the   argument   is   best 
apprehended  by  Young's  translation  of  the  word  '  Satan  '  as  '  adver- 
sary : '  '  How  is  an  adversary  able  to  cast  out  an  adversary  ? '     Each 
evangelist  continues  the  account  in  his  own  way,  the  agreement  being 
subst^intial  and  the  verbal  discrepancies  unimportant.    '  And  if  Satan  i-'  Mat.  -m; 
casteth  out  Satan,  he  is  divided  against  himself  :  how  then  shall  his 
kingdom   stand?'     'And  if  Satan  also  is  divided   against  himself,  11  Lni<r  is 
how  shall  his  kingdom  stand  ?  because  ye  say  that  1  cast  out  devils 
(Gr.  demons)  by  (or,  in)  Beelzebub.'     'And  if  Satan  hath  risen  up  :iMiuk-jc. 
against  himself,  and  is  divided,  he  cannot  stand,  but  hath  an  end.' 
It  would  be  the  height  of  absurdity  for  the  Adversary  thus  to  oppose 
himself,  foil  his  own  plans,  weaken  his  own  power,  annihilate  himself. 
And  if  the  act  of  exorcism  by  Jesus  involved  complicity  with  Satan,  how 
would  these  Pharisees  account  for  the  exercise  of  the  same  power  by 
disciples  of  their  own  ?     '  And  if  I  by  (or,  in)  Beelzebub  cast  out  i-.^  Mat.  -.'7 
devils  (Gr.  demons)  by  (or,  in)  whom  do  your  sons  cast  them  out  ? 
therefore  shall  they   be  your  judges.'     Luke  records  this  verse  in 
precisely  the  same  words.     The  Authorised  A^ersioii  has  '  children  '  in 
Matthew   and   'sons'   in   Luke.     The   Revisers   have   brought   the 
passages  into  harmony.     Alford  explains  that   the  word  '  sons '  is 
equivalent  to  '  scholars — disciples,'  and  refers  for  one  instance  of  such 


42  THE   KINa    AND    THE    KINGDOM:  [p.iRx  ii. 

ii.  Kings  3  usG  of  it  to  the  passage,  'And  the  sons  of  the  prophets  that  were  at 
Beth-el  came  forth  to  Elisha.'  Alford  says  :  '  The  interpretation  of 
this  verse  has  been  much  disputed  ;  viz.,  as  to  whether  the  castiiii;- 
out  by  the  sousof  the  Pharisees  were  ]-eal  or  pretended  exorcisms  .  .  . 
In  Josephus  we  read  that  Solomon  "  left  forms  of  exorcism,  by  which 
they  cast  out  demons,  so  that  they  never  return.  And  this  kind  of 
cure  is  very  common  among  us  to  this  day."  '  It  is  clear  that  some 
kind  of  exorcism,  real  or  imaginary,  was  practised  by  the  Jews  ;  and 
Jesus  argued  that  the  rule  of  judgment  applied  to  him  with  reference 
thereto,  must  also  apply  to  others.  It  could  not  be  held  that  the 
power  allowed  and  extolled  in  others,  Avas  evidence  of  Satanic  agency 
when  displayed  by  Jesus  ;  nor  would  those  sons  of  the  Pharisees 
tamely  submit  to  be  branded,  by  implication,  with  so  terrible  a 
charge  :  '  therefore  shall  they  be  your  judges.'  On  any  fair  and 
honest  reasoning,  the  very  opposite  conclusion  must  be  arrived 
at :  the  demon  spirit  must  be  held  to  be  cast  out  by  the  divine  spirit, 
and  the  fact  admitted,  that  the  divine  power  and  rulershij)  was  being 
12  Mat. -28  established  among  them.  '  P)Ut  if  I  by  (or,  in)  the  Spirit  of  (Jod 
cast  out  the  devils  (Gr.  demons),  then  is  the  kingdoar  of  God  come 
upon  you.'     Instead  of  the  word  'Spirit'  Luke  introduces  the  word 

1 1  Luke  -20    '  finger.'     '  But  if  I  by  the  finger  of  God  cast  out  devils  (Gr.  demons), 

then  is  the  kingdom  of  God  come  upon  you.'  The  sense  is  the  same  ; 
but  did  Jesus  use  both  forms  of  expression  ?  If  not,  which  of  the 
two.?  Who  changed  'Spirit'  into  'fingei','  or  the  reverse?  To  a 
Jewish  mind  the  difference  would  be  immaterial,  the  latter  being  a 
])roverbial  way  of  expressing  the  former  ;  so  that  a  reporter  of  the 
discourse,  being  equally  familiar  with  both  forms,  might  unconsciously 

s  Ex.  Ill  have  adopted  the  one  for  the  other.  '  Then  the  magicians  said  unto 
Pharaoh,  This  is  the  finger  of  God,'  that  is,  the  working  of  God's 

31  Ex.  18  power.  '  Tables  of  stone,  written  with  the  finger  of  God  : '  probably 
a  Jew  would  not  take  that  literally,  any  more  than  the  words  of  the 

-s  Psii.  .■?  Psalmist  :  '  When  I  consider  thy  heavens,  the  work  of  thy  fingers, 
the  moon  and  the  stars  which  thou  hast  ordained.'  The  'finger'  of 
(lod  is  synonymous  with  the  working,  the  Spirit,  the  ordainment 
of  God. 

Mark  has  not  recorded  the  argument  with  respect  to  the  sons  of 
the  Pharisees,  but  the  additional  illusfcratioti  which  follows  is  given 

3  Mark  27  by  the  three  evangelists.  In  Mark  it  stands  :  '  But  no  one  can  enter 
into  the  house  of  the  strong  man,  and  spoil  his  goods,  except  he  first 
bind  the  strong  man  ;  and  then  he  will  spoil  his  house.'    In  Matthew 

12  Mat.  2!)     the  only  ditt'erence  is  in  the  opening  words,  which  are,  '  Or  how  can 

one  enter,'  instead  of '  But  no  one  can  enter.'  In  Luke  the  illustra- 
11  f.uke  21,  tion  is  moi'e  elaborated  :  'When  the  strong »««»  fully  armed  guardeth 
'^  his  own  court,  his  goods  are  in  peace  :  but  when  a  stronger  than 
he  shall  come  upon  him,  and  overcome  him,  he  taketh  from  him  his 
whole  armour  wherein  he  trusted,  and  divideth  his  spoils.'  Jesus 
puts  forwai-d  the  parable  as  accurately  representing  the  nature  of  the 
work  in  which  he  was  engaged.  So  far  from  being  in  collusion  with 
the  adversary,  he  was  his  most  strenuous  and  powerful  opponent. 
The  casting  out  of  demons  denoted  victory  over  the  prince  of  demons  ; 
and  the  imparting  of  the  same  power  of  exorcism  to  the  disciples  of 
Jesus  might  fitly  be  compared  to  the  dividing  of  a  conqueror's  spoils 
among   his  followers.      The  idea  of  complicity  with  evil  must  be 


I'ART  11.]         A    ,rrUJ)Y    OF    THE    FOUR    (JOSl'FLS.  43 

scoutod.  The  stron.i^-est  form  of  proverl)  was  not  too  stvon,c^to  denote 
the  aiitn<;-oni.sm  which  exists  between  Jesus  and  evil,  and  the  ntter 
inipossibdity  of  any  combination,  truce,  or  agreement  among  tliose 
engaged  in  such  a  warfare,  'He  that  is  not  with  me  is  against  i:iM;u.  :;<i 
me;  "and  he  that  gathereth  not  with  me  scatteretli.'  Luke  gives 
precisely  tlie  same  words.     Mark  omits  them. 

The  scandalousness  of  the  charge  which  had  been  brought  against 
Jesus  impelled  him  to  utter  a  very  solemn  warning.     '  Therefore  I  ■'■^ 

say  unto  you,  Every  sin  and  blasphemy  shall  be  forgiven  unto  men  : 
but  the  blasi)hemy  against  the  Si)irit  shall  not  be  forgiven.'  Mark's 
account   is   fuller,    and   seems    to   give   the  exact   words  of   Jesus. 

*  Verily  I  say  unto  you,  All  their  sins  shall  be  forgiven  unto  the  sons  ;niark-.s  .jo 
of  men,  and  their  blasphemies  wherewithsoever  they  shall  blaspheme  : 

but  whosoever  shall  blaspheme  against  the  Holy  Spirit  hath  never 
forgiveness,  but  is  guilty  of  an  eternal  sin  :  because  they  said.  He 
hath  an  unclean  spirit.'  These  last  eight  words,  giving  the  reason 
why  Jesus  made  the  observation,  agree  in  effect  with  Matthew's, 

*  Therefore  I  say  unto  you  : '  obviously  there  was  some  such  preface 
to  the  remark,  though  Mark  does  not  record  it. 

Let  us  first  note  the  difference  between  the  Authorisedand  Revised 
Yersions  of  Matthew.  '  x\ll  manner  of  sin  and  blasphemy '  is  now 
rendered  '  Every  sin  and  blasphemy,'  which  agrees  with  Tischendorf. 
Young  renders,  '  All  sin  and  evil  speaking.'  The  alteration  is  an 
irapoi-tant  one.  'All  manner  '  simply  refers  to  the  kinds  of  sin  and 
blasphemy  which  shall  be  forgiven  ;  but  the  words  '  every  '  and  '  all ' 
keep  out  of  view  the  kinds,  and  relate  to  the  entire  catalogue,  as  a 
whole,  of  sin  and  blasphemy.     The  Revisers  note   that  instead  of 

*  unto  men,'  '  some  ancient  authorities  read  I'/ifo  you  men.''  That  is 
the  reading  of  the  Yatican  M8.,  but  Tischendorf  does  not  adopt  it. 
In  the  Authorised  Yersion  verse  31  ends  with  the  words  'unto  men,' 
but  the  Revisers  have  not  repeated  them,  in  deference  to  the  reading 
of  the  two  oldest  M8S.     In  verse  31    the  Authorised  Yersion  has 

*  CKja'uist  the  Holy  Spirit,'  the  italics  showing  that  the  words  '  against ' 
nnd  '  Holy '  were  added  by  the  translatoj-s.  The  Revisers  have  not 
italicised  the  word  '  against,'  ^vhich  is  rendered  'of  by  Young,  but 
they  have  omitted  '  Holy,'  with  Young  and  Tischendorf.  Tischen- 
dorf renders  '  will  be  forgiven  '  and  '  will  not  be  forgiven,'  instead  of 
'shall  be  forgiven'  and  'shall  not  be  forgiven.'  This  may  be 
regarded  as  more  than  a  mere  verbal  difference.  The  word  '  shall ' 
is  more  restrictive,  seeming  to  indicate  rather  the  power  and  possi- 
bility of  forgiveness  than  its  certainty  and  universality  ;  the  word 
Mviir  is  absolute,  docs  not  involve  but  rather  excludes  the  idea  of 
any  uncertainty  :  '  all  sin  will  be  forgi^•en,'  is  simply  the  assertion  of 
<i  fact  ;  '  all  sin  shall  be  forgiven,'  raises  in  the  mind  a  conception  of 
one  who  says  it  shall  or  it  shall  not. 

l\\  Mark  the  Revisers  have  twice  inserted  the  word  '  their,'  where 
it  does  not  appear  in  the  Authorised  Yersion  :  'All  their  sins  shall 
be  forgiven  unto  the  sons  of  men,  and  their  blasphemies.'  Tischen- 
dorf renders  :  '  All  things  shall  be  forgiven  unto  the  sons  of  men,  the 
sins  and  the  blasphemies.'     The  Revisers  have  replaced  the  words 

*  is  in  danger  of  eternal  damnation,'  by,  '  is  guilty  of  an  eternal  sin.' 
Alford  gives  the  same  reading.     The  "Sinaitic  MS.  reads,  '  shall  be  in 


44  THE    KING    AND    THE    KINGDOM:  [part  ii. 

danger.'  The  word  '  damnation  '  (judgment — Young)  has  been 
altered  to  '  sin '  on  the  authority  of  the  two  oldest  MSS.  Instead  of 
'  is  guilty,'  Tischendorf  renders  '  will  be  guilty.'  Young's  rendering- 
is  as  follows  :  '  A\\  the  sins  shall  be  forgiven  to  the  sous  of  men,  and 
evil  speakings  with  which  they  may  speak  evil  ;  but  whoever  may 
speak  evil  of  the  Holy  Spirit  hath  not  forgiveness — for  the  age,  but 
is  in  dauger  of  age-during  judgment.' 

Taking  Matthew  and  Mark  together,  what  is  the  doctrine  here 
enunciated  by  Jesus  ?  '  Every  sin  and  blasphemy  shall  be  forgiven 
unto  men.'  '  All  their  sins  shall  be  forgiven  unto  the  sons  of  men, 
and  their  blasphemies  wherewithsoever  they  shall  blaspheme.'  By 
introducing  in  Mark  the  word  '  their,'  the  Revisers  have  brought  out 
the  fact  that  the  allusion  is  to  sins  and  evil  speakings  of  man  against 
man.  In  Matthew  also  only  a  slight  pause  is  needed  :  '  shall  be 
forgiven — unto  men,'  to  indicate  that  the  sin  and  evil  speaking- 
referred  to  are  those  '  unto  men '  or  '  unto  you  men,'  not  '  unto  the 
Spirit.'  The  '  Englishmen's  Greek  New  Testament '  gives  the  literal 
translation  of  Matthew  thus  :  '  Every  sin  and  blasphemy  shall  be  for- 
given to  men  ;  but  the  concerning  the  spirit  blasphemy  shall  not  bo 
forgiven.'  Until  the  Revisers,  following  the  two  oldest  MSS.. 
excluded  after  '  forgiven  '  the  words  '  unto  men,'  which  had  stood  for 
centuries  as  the  last  two  words  of  this  verse,  it  was  not  possible  to 
adopt  the  \\^vi  which  is  probably  the  correct  one.  '  CJnto  men  ' 
seemed  bound  to  the  previous  word  '  forgiven.'  The  passages  can 
now  be  read  a,s  though  they  stood  :  '  All  sins  and  evil  speakings  unto 
men  shall  be  forgiven,'  'All  their  sins  unto  the  sons  of  men  shall  be 
forgiven.'  The  '  Englishman's  Greek  New  Testament '  renders  Mark 
literally  thus  :  'All  the  sins  to  the  sous  of  men,  and  blasphemies 
whatsoever  they  shall  have  blasphemed  shall  be  forgiven  ;  but  who- 
soever shall  blaspheme  against  the  Spirit  the  Holy  .  .  .' 

And  how  must  Ave  understand  the  word  '  forgiven  ? '  Forgiven  by 
man,  or  forgiven  by  God  ?  That  question  has  no  bearing  upon 
the  matter,  if  we  can  only  be  persuaded  that  '  forgiveness  '  must  be  a 
fact  and  not  a  fiction,  actual  and  not  merely  verbal,  a  reality  in 
existence  and  not  simply  an  intellectual  conception  :  to  the  prisoner, 
freedom  from  confinement ;  to  the  debtor,  cancelment  of  the  debt ;  to 
the  transgressor  in  any  shape,  deliverance  from  the  penalty  imposed. 
Nothing  short  of  that  can  be  real  forgiveness.  To  the  extent  to 
which  man  can  deliver  man  from  the  consequences  due  to  or  actually 
inflicted  upon  wrong  doing,  to  that  extent  does  the  exercise  of  human 
forgiveness  reach.  And  the  divine  forgiveness  must  surely  reach  as 
far  and  perform  as  much,  unless  it  be  a  mere  figment  of  the  imagina- 
tion, a  theological  idea,  a  belief  in  some  assumed  change  in  the  mind 
and  will  of  God  towards  us,  of  which,  however,  we  can  have  no 
evidence  apart  from  some  corresponding  change  in  ourselves  and  our 
surroundings.  When  Jesus  asserted  that  all  sin  and  evil  speaking 
among  men  will  be  forgiven,  must  he  not  have  meant,  that  in  the 
onward  progress  of  humanity  a  time  will  come  when  the  sins  and 
slanders  of  this  life  will  have  been  sufficiently  atoned  for,  leaving  no 
resentment  of  past  wrongs  on  the  part  of  the  injured,  and  no  per- 
manent stain  upon  the  moral  nature  of  the  injurer,  the  renovation  of 
society  being  perfected  through  the  regeneration  of  each  individual, 
w'ith  no  punishment,  human  or  divine,  to  be  imposed  or  dreaded  on 


PART  II.]         A    STUItY    OF    THE    FUl'R    (.'OSI'ELS.  45 

account  of  past  transgressions  ?  Such  a  consumniation  can  be  brouglit 
about  only  througli  the  working  of  'the  Holy  Spirit  of  (iod,  in  whom  i  I'^i'ii-  •"" 
we  are  sealed  unto  the  day  of  redemption  ;' and  if  a  man  grieves, 
maligns,  blasphemes,  speaks  evil  of  that  Spirit  whence  can  regenera- 
tion "and  forgiveness  come  to  him  ?  That  sin,  and  its  penalty,  lie 
not  within  the  range  of  human  jurisdiction.  Tliey  are  bound  up 
with  the  very  existence  of  the  transgressor,  defiling  and  hardening 
the  mind  and  conscience  :  he  'hath  never  forgiveness,  but  is  guilty 
of  an  eternal  sin,'  literally,  he  '  hath  not  forgiveness — for  the  age,  but 
is  guilty  of  an  age-duriug  sin.'  This  is  the  one  moral  obli(|uity  from 
which  there  can  be  no  salvation  :  the  transgressor  must  bear  the 
burden  of  his  infamy  to  his  'last  day  ;  '  the  guilt  and  condemnation 
are  declared  by  the  Saviour  to  be  '  age-during  : '  we  may  neither  take 
from  nor  add  to  that  declaration. 

jMatthew  has  preserved  a  further  saying  of  Jesus  on  this  subject. 
'  And  whosoever  shall  speak  a  word  against  the  Son  of  man,  it  shall  ij  mm.  .u 
he  forgiven  him.'     The  evil  speaking  of  mankind  against  the  Messiah 
is  pardonable,  equally  with  that  against  men  in  general.     '  But  who-  ■■■^ 

soever  shall  speak  against  the  Holy  Spirit,  it  shall  not  be  forgiven 
him,  neither  in  this  world  (or,  age),  nor  in  that  which  is  to  come.' 
Young  renders  :  '  neither  in  this  age,  nor  in  that  which  is  coming.' 
'  Neither  in  this  age,  nor  in  that  to  come,'  is  the  rendering  of  Samuel 
Sharpe.  Luther,  however,  used  the  word  '  Welt,'  '  world,'  and  it  is 
surprising  how  tenaciously  translators  liave  clung  to  the  word '  world.' 
Dr.  Samuel  Davidson,  in  his  translation  from  the  Latiu  critical  text 
of  Von  Tischendorf,  retanis  the  word  '  world  : '  yet  in  Beza's  Latin 
Testament  the  passage  stands,  '  neque  in  hoc  seculo,  neque  in  futuro.' 
Alford  admitted  the  true  meaning  of  the  word  aidn,  but  seems  to 
have  regarded  as  a  matter  of  indilierence  the  fact  that  it  has  been 
rendered  in  a  variety  of  ways.  He  says  :  '  The  expressions  t/iis  world, 
(equivalent  to  tJtis  jirenrnt  world,  Tit.  ii.  12  :  2  Tim.  iv.  10  ;  this 
time,  Mark  x.  30  ;  the  course  {(uje)  of  this  world,  Eph.  ii.  2  ;  this  present 
evil  ivofld.  Gal.  i.  4),  and  the  irorld  to  come  (see  Mark  x.  30  ;  equiva- 
lent to  thcit  ivortd,  Luke  xx.  35  ;  tJie  ages  to  cume,  Eph.  ii.  7)  were 
I'ommon  among  the  Jews,  and  generally  signified  respectively  the 
time  before  and  after  the  coming  of  the  Messiah.'  In  every 
passage  here  quoted  by  Alford,  the  w^ord  '  age '  has  been  adopted 
by  Young.  The  persistent  use  of  a  wrong  word  is  no  small  matter. 
The  Revisers  have  not  discarded  '  world,'  but  they  have  given 
the  word  '  age  '  in  the  margin.     For  that  much  let  us  be  thankful. 

Jesus  added  another  illustration  of  the  supreme  folly  of  attributing 
good  works  to  an  evil  origin.  The  suggestion  was  contrary  to  the 
course  of  nature.  '  Either  make  the  tree  good,  and  its  fruit  good  ;  or  ij  Mat.  :■>:! 
make  the  tree  corrupt,  and  its  fruit  corrupt  :  for  the  tree  is  known  by 
its  fruit.'  Adopting  that  simple  rule  of  judgment,  the  abominable 
slander  uttered  against  Jesus  betrayed  the  natural  depravity  of  the 
speakers,  Jesus  did  not  scruple  now  to  endorse  with  his  own 
authority  the  crushing  sarcasm  which  the  Baptist  had  applied  to  the 
Pharisees  and  Sadducees  :  '  Ye  offspring  of  vipers.'  That  title  might  j  .Mat.  r 
well  designate  them  :  their  bitter  hostility,  their  hissing  calumnies, 
their  tortuous  insinuations,  their  crawling  subtleties,  the  poisonous 
malice  of  their  envenomed  tongues, — all  these  things  were  as  evident 


4G  THE    KING    AND    THE    KINGDOM:  [part  ii. 

as  they  were  inimical  and  repulsive  to  good  and  earnest-ininded 
teachers.     Truth  and   charity  wei'e  as  strange  to  their  lips  as  an 

VI  Mat.  :;4  unknown  language.  'Ye  oHspring  of  vipers,  how  can  ye,  being  evil, 
speak  good  things  ?  for  out  of  the  abundance  of  the  heart  the  ruouth 
speakcth.'  The  thoughts,  good  or  evil,  treasured  in  the  rnind,  and  the 
desires  cherished  in  rhe  heart,  must  needs  find  utterance,  and  thereby 
„  3.j  manifest  the  disposition  and  character.  '  The  good  man  out  of  his 
good  treasure  bringeth  forth  good  thiugs  :  and  tlie  evil  man  out  of 
his  evil  treasure  bringeth  forth  evil  things.'  The  conversation  of  a 
man,  even  his  most  casual  talk,  is  as  important  as  any  other  form  of 
..  "i;  human  action,  and  will  be  judged  in  the  same  way.  '  And  I  say  unto 
you,  that  every  idle  word  that  men  shall  speak,  they  shall  give 
account  thereof  in  the  day  of  judgement.'  How  must  we  understand 
this  allusion  to  '  the  day  of  judgement  ?'  Not,  assuredly,  according 
to  the  popular  conception  of  it.  The  words  of  Jesus  must  be  taken 
in  their  simplicity  in  the  light  of  the  context  only.  In  the  original 
there  is  no  article  before  'day  :  '  it  is  simply  'in  day  of  judgment/ 
which  undoubtedly  means  'in  time  of  judgment.'  He  does  not  say 
judgment  after  death,  or  final  judgment,  or  divine  judgment,  or 
universal  judgment.     Let  us  take  a  somewhat  similar  saying  of  Jesus  : 

.-.  Mat.  j:.  '  Agree  with  thine  adversary  quickly,  whiles  thou  art  with  him  in  the 
way  ;  lest  haply  the  adversary  deliver  thee  to  the  judge.'  That 
would  be  a  day,  time,  way  of  judgment.  The  idea  in  both  passages 
is  confined  to  that.  "We  must  not  add  to  it  wliat  Jesus  did  not  add. 
He  does  not  assert,  (how  then  can  we  presume  to  do  so  ?)  that  judg- 
ment will  be  held  in  every  case,  but  simply  that  when  a  judgment 
does  take  place,  every  casual  remark  brought  before  the  ti'ibunal  will 
be  investigated,  and  the  responsibility  attaching  to  its  utterance 
brought  home  to  the  speaker.  Jesus  had  just  declared  :  '  All  evil- 
speaking  shall  be  forgiven  unto  men.'  He  seems  now  to  be  alluding 
to  exceptional  cases,  in  wh:ch  there  is  not  forgiveness  but  judgment. 
It  is  obvious  that  he  could  not  at  one  and  the  same  time  have  intended 
it  to  be  understood  that  all  our  evil  words  would  be  forgiven  and 
that  all  idle  words  would  be  judged.  It  is  equally  evident  that  his 
object  was  to  inculcate  the  responsibility  attaching  to  all  speech, 
especially  that  which  takes  the  form  of  criticism.     The  lesson  he 

i-'Mat.  37  Avould  have  men  learn  was  this:  'For  by  thy  words  thou  shalt  be 
justified,  and  by  thy  words  thou  shalt  be  condemned.' 

At  this  point  there  is  some  uncertainty  about  the  arrangement  of 
the  narrative.  Following  Luke's  order,  we  should  have  to  pass  over 
five  verses  of  jMatthew.  Verse  43  begins  with  the  word  '  but,'  which 
indicates  a  sequence,  yet  the  subject  introduced  appears,  at  first  sight, 
to  have  no  connection  with  what  precedes,  but  to  be  more  nearly 
related  to  the  matter  lately  presented,  for  Jesus  gives  an  explanation 
of  the  fact  of  demoniacal  repossession  after  exorcism.  On  the  other 
hand,  the  words  in  verse  45,  '  Even  so  shall  it  be  also  unto  this  evil 
generation,'  show  the  bearing  of  this  on  the  previous  discourse,  and 
lead  to  the  conclusion  that  Matthew's  arrangement  is  correct.  He 
tells  us  that  some  of  the  class  of  persons  Jesus  had  been  condemning, 
retorted  by  asking  him  for  a  sign  in  attestation  of  his  authority. 
,  -^  '  Then  certain  of  the  scribes  aud  Pharisees  answered  him,  saying, 
Master  (or,  Teacher),  we  would  see  a  sign  from  thee.'     Jesus  replied 


PAKT  II.]         A    STUDY    OF    TEE    Foil!    aoSPELS.  Al 

tluit  such  a  demand  was  in  itself  an  indication  of  evil  and  immor- 
ality :  only  when  the  f2,-nidan(,'e  of  reason  and  conscience  are  set  aside, 
and  the  sanctities  of  human  nature  vicilated,  can  there  arise  a  craving 
for  Slime  other  and  external  illumination  to  supply  tlic  want  of  that 
natural  h'ght  which  lighteth  every  man.  '  fJut  he  answered  and  said  12  Mat.  ;i:> 
unto  them,  An  evil  and  adulterous  g-eneration  seeketh  after  a  sign.' 
Luke  does  not  state  who  were  the  questioners,  but  tells  us  that  these 
words  of  .lesus  formed  the  opening  of  a  discourse  to  a  large  congrega- 
tion. 'And  when  tlie  multitudes  were  gadiering  together  unto  him,  i:  Liii;e  ■.■;. 
he  began  to  say.  This  generation  is  an  evil  generation  :  it  seeketh 
after  a,  sign.'  Probably  the  scribes  and  Phai'isees  had  chosen  for  their 
\  isit  a  time  shortly  previous  to  that  fixed  for  the  sermon  to  be 
delivered  by  Jesus,  and  he  preferred  to  give  liis  answer  the  greatest 
publicity  possible.  He  told  them  that  the  arbitrary  desire  for  a 
miracle  would  not  be  gratified,  except  after  the  same  fashion  as  that 
in  which  Jonah  became  a  sigu  to  the  Xinevites  :  'and  there  shall  no  „  l'h, yi> 
sign  be  given  to  it  but  the  sign  of  Jonah.  For  even  as  Jonah 
became  a  sign  unto  tlie  Ninevites,  so  shall  also  the  Sou  of  man  be  to 
this  generation.'  Matthew  gives  the  words  of  .Fesus  more  fully  :  '  and  i-2Mat.3!),4i> 
rhere  shall  no  sign  be  given  to  it  but  the  sign  of  Jonah  the  prophet  : 
lor  as  Jonah  was  three  days  and  thivc  nights  in  the  belly  of  the 
whale  (Gr.  sea-monster),  so  shall  the  Son  of  man  be  three  days  and 
three  nights  in  the  heart  of  thu  earth.'  The  expression  '  heart  of  the 
earth,'  is  peculiar.  Alford  constructed  the  following  argument 
respecting  it.  '  Jonah  himself  calls  the  belly  of  the  sea-monster 
'' the  belly  of  Hades,"  =i]ie  heart  of  fhe  rartJi,  here.  And  observe, 
that  the  type  is  not  of  our  Lord's  body  being  deposited  in  the  tomb 
of  Joseph  of  Arimathea,  for  neither  could  that  be  called  "  the  heart  of 
the  earth,"  nor  could  it  be  said  that  "the  Son  of  man  "was  there 
during  the  time  ;  but  of  our  Lord's  personal  descent  into  the  place 
of  departed  souls.'  The  argument  outruns  the  subject  of  discourse. 
A  descent  '  into  the  place  of  departed  souls '  could  be  no  sigu  to  living- 
men.  Probably  the  expression  '  heart  of  the  earth  '  was  a  colloquial 
figure  of  speech,  as  we  now  speak  of  '  the  l)osom  of  the  earth.'  The 
meaning  attachable  to  the  words  of  Jesus  seems  to  amount  to  this  : 
The  teacher  himself  must  be  the  sign, — as  Jonah  to  the  Xinevites,  so 
Jesus  to  his  generation.  But  taking  the  word 'sign 'as  equivalent 
to  '  wonder '  or  '  marvel,'  the  mysterious  reappearance  of  Jonah  after 
an  absence  from  the  world  of  three  days  would  be  paralleled  in  the 
history  of  Jesus  by  a  similar  supernatural  resurrection,  after  an 
iuterment  in  the  earth  extending  over  the  same  period.  He  tells  them 
here  what  he  told  his  disciples  privately,  that  after  three  days  he 
would  rise  again. 

H'  reformation  did  not  follow  \\\)0\\  the  preaching  of  Jesus,  it  could 
i»e  for  no  lack  of  a  sign,  for  the  example  of  the  Xinevites  proved  the 
contrary.  '  The  men  of  Xineveh  shall  stand  up  in  the  judgement  „  41 
with  this  generation,  and  shall  condemn  it :  for  they  repented  at  the 
1  treadling  of  Jonah  ;  and  behold,  a  greater  than  (Gr.  more  than) 
Jonah  is  here.'  Young  renders  :  '  for  they  reformed  at  the  proclama- 
tion of  Jonah,  and  lo,  something  greater  than  Jonah  here  : '  Tischeu- 
dorf  :  '  because  they  repented  at  the  proclamation  of  Jonah,  and 
'ochold,  more  than  Jonah  is  here.'  The  omission  by  Dr.  Young  of 
the  definite  article  at  the  beginning  of  the  verse  is  not  unimportant. 


48  THE    KING    AND    THE    KINGDOM:  [part  ii. 

'  The  men  of  Nineveh  shall  stand  up  in  the  judgement,'  may  be  taken 
by  some  persons  to  refci'  to  a  day  of  general,  simultaneous  judgment 
both  of  living  and  dead,  but  there  is  seen  to  be  no  ground  for  such 
an  idea  when  the  word  '  the  '  before  '  men  '  is  struck  out.  .Jesus  is 
here  simply  contrasting  the  pri\ileges  and  conduct  of  those  who 
asked  him  for  a  sign,  with  those  of  men  who  reformed  their  lives  at 
Jonah's  warning  :  in  that  review,  or  judgment,  the  Jews  would 
stand  condemned  by  Ninevites.  The  judgment  here  spoken  of  is  not 
that  of  God  over  his  creatures,  or  of  Messiah  over  mankind,  but  the 
silent,  self-evident  condemnation  of  one  class  of  persons  by  comparison 
with  others,  jSTinevites  rising  up  out  of  ancient  history  to  cast  dis- 
credit on  the  men  of  the  latest  generation.  That  is  the  natural,  un- 
strained sense  of  the  assertion  made  by  Jesus,  harmonising  with  the 
context  and  developing  his  argument.  It  is  a  hasty  and  inconsiderate 
idea,  to  assume  that  the  juxtaposition  of  the  words  '  the  judgment ' 
with  the  word  '  rise '  must  needs  refer  to  the  resuirectiou  of  tlie  dead 
at  the  last  judgment.  iVgainst  an  interpretation  of  the  passage  so 
far-fetched  and  misleading,  it  is  enough  to  point  out  that  the  con- 
demnation proceeds  from  the  Ninevites,  not  from  the  judge.  The 
Revisers  have  helped  forward  the  proper  view  of  the  passage  by  alter- 
ing '  rise  '  into  '  stand  up.' 

The  drift  of  the  argument  is  evident  from  the  expression,  '  more 
than  Jonah  is  here.'  In  blind  perverseness  the  scribes  and  Pharisees 
were  asking  for  something  they  had  not  and  could  not  have,  some 
special  'sign.'  Jesus  replies  that  they  had  already  more  than  was 
necessary  :  Jonah  had  sufficed  for  the  reformation  of  the  Nine^■ites, 
and  here  was  more  than  Jonah.  The  allusion  was  indefinite,  not 
restricted  to  the  personality  of  Jesus  :  they  had  '  more  '  everyway  : 
advanced  knowledge,  a  purer  creed,  and,  in  place  of  a  half-hearted, 
wavering  i)rophet,  unAvillingly  making  proclamation  of  coming  doom, 
an  incomparable,  earnest,  loving  Teacher.  Uviiig,  preaching,  and 
working  miracles  among  them. 

VI  Mut.  4-2  Precisely  the  same  idea  is  conveyed  by  the  next  illustration.  '  The 
queen  of  the  south  shall  rise  up  in  the  judgement  with  this  generation, 
and  shall  condemn  it :  for  she  came  from  tfie  ends  of  the  earth  to 
hear  the  wisdom  of  Solomon  ;  and  behold,  a  greater  than  (Gr.  more 
than)  Solomon  is  here.'  More,  by  as  much  as  heaven  exceeds  earth, 
and  the  gospel  of  the  kingdom  of  God  the  wisdom  of  the  world. 

Luke  corresponds  very  nearly  Avith  Matthew,  except  that  he  places 
the  reference  to  the  Ninevites  after  that  to  tlie  queen  of  the  south. 

II  i.nk(^  :;i,  '  The  queen  of  the  south  shall  rise  up  in  the  judgement  with  the  men 
''"'  of  this  generation,  and  shall  condemn  them  :  for  she  came  from  the 
ends  of  the  earth  to  hear  the  wisdom  oi'  Solomon  ;  and  behold,  a 
greater  than  (Gr.  more  than)  Solomon  is  here.  The  men  of  Nineveh 
shall  stand  up  in  the  judgement  with  this  generation,  and  shall  con- 
demn it :  for  they  repented  at  the  preaching  of  Jonah  ;  and  behold, 
a  greater  than  (Gr.  more  than)  Jonah  is  hei-e.'  In  both  narratives  the 
words  rendered  respectively  by  the  Revisers  '  stand  up'  and  'rise  up' 
represent  the  Greek  verbs  anisiemi  aud  egeird.  This  free  interchange 
of  two  words  is  inconsistent  with  the  idea  that  they  carry  a  theological 
sense,  in  relation  to  the  doctrine  of  a  resurrection.  In  the  original  there 
is  no  definite  article  :  it  is  simply,  '  Men  of  Nineveh,'  as  in  Matthew. 

i:;  .Mat.  4a        Jesus  Continued  :  '  But  the  unclean  spirit,  when  he  (or,  it)  is  gone 


i>ART  11.]         .1    STUDY    OF    THE    FOUll    GOSl'FLS.  4'.> 

out  of  the  man,  passeth  tln'ouj^'h  waterless  places,  seeking-  rest,  and 
findetli  it  not.'  Tlie  word  '  but,'  wliicli  indicates  a  connection  witli 
what  went  before,  is  omitted  in  tlie  Authorised  Version  ;  it  is  inserted 
by  Young,  Tischendorf  and  Alford.  Here  is  the  case  of  a  man  wlio 
has  been  under  the  dominion  of  spiritual  evil,  but  is  freed  from  it. 
Jesus  speaks  here,  as  often  elsewhere,  of  the  evil  spirit  as  a  real,  living 
Being.  That  is  a  mystery  which  we  cannot  fatiiom  ;  we  must  not 
feign  to  possess  knowledge  on  a  subject  of  which  we  are  profoundly 
ignorant.  We  know  absolutely  nothing  about  spiritual  Beings  such 
as  are  here  alluded  to,  and  we  can  only  follow,  huinbly  and  reverently, 
the  words  of  our  great  Teacher  on  tlie  subject,  lie  i)ictures  to  us, 
in  his  expressive,  figurative  way,  the  restlessness  and  misery  of  the 
disembodied  spirit — a  weary  traveller  through  a  desert,  with  no  water 
to  appease  thirst,  and  no  place  for  shelter  and  repose.  The  resolution 
is  therefore  taken  to  return  to  the  former  dwelling-place.  '  Then  he  i-'  mui.  u 
(or,  it)  saith,  I  will  i-eturn  into  my  house,  whence  I  came  out.' 
Acting  upon  this  determination,  the  prior  abode  is  found  to  be, 
according  to  Young's  literal  translation,  '  unoccupied,  swept,  and  .,  u 
adorned.'  '  And  when  he  (or,  it)  is  come,  he  (or,  it)  tindeth  it  empty,  n  i.nkc  jt- 
swept,  and  garnished.'     Luke's  narration  of  the  parable  is  from  first  '-'" 

to  last  almost  word  for  word  identical  with  Matthew,  except  that  the 
first  word,  '  but,'  is  omitted,  and  also  here  the  word  '  empty.'  But 
for  that,  we  should  be  inclined  to  think  that  the  chief  point  of  the 
warning  lay  in  this  fact  of  the  emptiness  of  the  place — that  there  was 
nothing  to  hinder  repossession.  As  it  stands,  no  particular  stress 
attaches  to  the  word  '  empty.'  The  old  home  now  showed  all  the 
external  signs  of  decency  and  refinement ;  but  there  had  been  no 
barring  of  the  door  against  the  possibility  of  re-entry.  It  stood 
invitingly  open,  and  the  former  evil  occupant  sought  the  companion- 
ship of  seven  kindred  spirits,  worse  in  character  than  himself;  all 
together  they  took  possession  of  that  li\'ing  temple  which  should  ever 
be  kept  sacred  to  the  service  of  God  and  man,  and  the  lordship  of 
evil  being  now  re-established  over  the  man's  body  and  mind,  his 
condition  became  worse  than  before,  and  finally  hopeless.  '  Then  J-  i'-'i-  ->•"' 
goeth  he  (or,  it),  and  taketh  with  himself  (or,  itself)  seven  other 
spirits  more  evil  than  himself  (or,  itself),  and  they  enter  in  and  dwell 
there  :  and  the  last  state  of  that  man  becometh  worse  than  the  first. 
Matthew  records  the  application  given  by  Jesus  himself  to  this 
parable.  '  Even  so  shall  it  be  also  unto  this  evil  generation.'  The  ..  +'• 
iidvances  they  had  been  able  to  make  towards  a  better,  purer,  higher 
life,  would  be  forfeited  and  lost.  The  fair  show  of  social  decorum 
and  religious  ol)servances  would  be  disorganised,  trampled  into  con- 
fusion, and  ruthlessly  destroyed.  Past  history  would  repeat  itself, 
with  added  marks  of  evil,  of  misery,  of  horroi'. 

Luke  here  relates  an  incident  not  recorded  by  the  other  evangelists. 
Among  the  crowd  of  listeners  was  a  woman,  who  was  so  enraptured 
by  the  discourse  of  Jesus  that  she  gave  vent  to  her  feelings  by  a 
loudly-uttered  cry  of  admiration.  Her  tribute  of  praise  was  con- 
ceived in  true  womanly  fashion,  amounting  in  fact  to  this,  Happy 
the  mother  of  such  a  son  !  '  And  it  came  to  pass,  as  he  said  these  ii  lmi<i'  17 
things,  a  certain  -woman  out  of  the  multitude  lifted  up  her  voice,  and 
said  unto  him,  Blessed  is  the  womb  that  bare  thee,  and  the  breasts 


50  THE   KING    AND    THE    KINGDOM:  [parx  ii. 

which  thou  did  suck.'  Even  such  an  outburst  as  that  Jesus  would 
not  suifer  to  pass  unnoticed  or  unimproved.  It  is  evident  that  on  all 
occasions  he  manifested  the  utmost  consideration  for  any  arguments 
or  sentiments  expressed  by  those  he  was  addressing.  He  left  no 
objector  without  a  fitting  reply,  and  occasionally  suffered  repeated 
iuterruptions  to  the  chain  of  his  reasoniugs.  He  now  takes  up  the 
woman's  sayiug,  and  deals  with  it  appreciatively  and  gently.  The 
eulogy  was  based  upon  his  preaching,  and  any  blessing  connected 
with  that  must  fall  primarily,  chiefly,  if  not  entirely,  upon  those  who 
heard  from  him  the  word  of  God  in  a  spirit  of  obedience.  True, 
their  happiness  might  reflect  itself  upon  his  mother,  but  what  was 
that  compared  with  the  direct  blessing  resulting  from  his  teaching  ? 
11  Luk,'  28  '  But  he  said,  Yea  rather,  blessed  are  they  that  hear  the  word  of  God, 
and  keep  it.'  It  was  as  though  one  should  exclaim,  Happy  the 
mother  of  so  skilful  a  physician !  and  be  answered,  Yes,  but  how 
much  happier  the  multitudes  he  has  been  able  to  cure  ! 

Probably  the  observation  of  the  woman  was  suggested  by  the  fact 
that  the  mother  of  Jesus  was  then  known  to  be  standing  at  the  edge 
112  Mat.  -10  of  the  crowd,  waiting  until  his  discourse  should  be  finished.  This  is 
:)  Marie  31  hcrc  Stated  both  by  Matthew  and  Mark,  and  the  incident  has  already 
s  Luke  v.>  ]jQQix  considered  in  connection  with  Luke's  narrative,  the  displace- 
:;  Maik  'ji  ment  in  which  probably  extends  to  this  portion  also.  Mark  tells  us» 
just  before  he  relates  the  charge  of  the  scribes  of  complicity  with 
Beelzebub,  that  the  friends  of  Jesus  went  out  to  lay  hold  on  him, 
under  the  idea  that  he  was  beside  himself.  At  the  close  of  the  reply 
„  ai  of  Jesus,  Mark  reports  that  his  brethren  and  mother  were  standing- 
without,  enquiring  for  him,  and  Matthew  introduces  them  at  the 
same  point  in  the  narrative.  The  inference  is  clear  :  at  the  very 
time  when  the  woman,  in  her  outspoken  impetuosity,  was  assuming 
the  mother  of  Jesus  to  be  the  happiest  among  women,  Mary's  heart 
must  have  been  agitated  with  grief  and  anxiety.  No  one  could 
realise  her  lilessedness  so  fully  as  herself.  The  salutation  of  the 
angel  Gabriel  would  even  yet  be  sounding  in  her  ears,  as  would  the 
1  Luke  ij  congratulatory  words  of  Elisabeth,  '  Blessed  art  thou  among  women, 
and  blessed  is  the  fruit  of  thy  womb.'  But  now,  and  for  how  long- 
before  we  know  not,  her  sublime  joy  had  been  turned  to  bitter 
misery.  The  problem  of  her  life  was  not  an  easy  one.  From  the 
time  when  Joseph  her  husband  had  been  minded  to  put  her  away 
privily,  she  had  been  destined,  owing  to  her  unparalleled  experiences 
and  surroundings,  to  occupy  a  false  position,  not  morally  false,  but 
outwardly  so,  on  account  of  that  strange  secret  in  her  history  of 
which  her  betrothed  husband  knew  nothing  and  judged  wrongly, 
until  he  received  a  special  revelation  on  the  subject,  and  of  which 
the  world  at  large  and  probably  Mary's  own  family  knew  absolutely 
nothing  to  her  dying  day.  Her  miraculous  conception  of  the  child 
Jesus  was  not  a  matter  which  could  be  entrusted  to  the  four  winds" 
of  idle  rumour,  subject  to  all  the  irreverence  and  scepticism  which 
would  have  mingled  with  public  discussion  and  criticism.  Such  a 
topic  must  needs  have  been  far  too  sacred  for  the  world's  gaze  and 
comments.  The  holy  marvel  doubtless  remained  a  locked  secret  in 
Mary's  bosom.  8he  kept  all  these  things,  and  pondered  them  in  her 
heart,  and  must  have  watched  her  child's  development  and  course  of 
action  with  feelings  of  submissive,  self-repressive  awe  and  expectation. 


I'AKT  II.]         A    STUDY    OF    THE    Foil!    GOSPELS.  51 

So  if.  came  to  puss,  that  hev  other  cliildreu  had  no  perception  of  the 
divine  ori,2,-in  a,nd  heavenly  work  of  Jesus  ;  they  judi^cd  of  him 
aceordino-  to  the  idea  current  with  tliose  who  were  older  than  them- 
selves, men  of  learuini>-  and  reputation,  scribes  and  I*harisees,  who 
had  come  in  contact  with  Iiim,  tested  him,  and  condemned  hira. 
I'j\ery  glimpse  we  get  of  the  family  life  confirms  this  natural  conclu- 
sion. At  one  time  we  find  Jesus  a(hnitting  the  fact  that  he  was  'a  is  mui.  r.a 
prophet  without  honour  in  his  own  house.'  and  the  neighbours  per- 
suaded that  he  was  simply  on  an  equality  in  all  points  with  his 
brothers  and  sisters.  At  another  time  we  are  told  that  'even  hisvjoim^ 
brethren  did  not  believe  on  him,'  and  challenged  him  to  take  more 
active  measures  to  convince  the  world,  if  hereahy  believed  in  himself. 
NoAV  we  find  his  '  friends '  criticising  his  public  teachings  and  grow- 
ing notoriety,  and  expressing  their  conviction  that  he  was  '  beside 
himself.'  In  tlieir  etforts  to  'lay  hold  on  him'  they  naturally 
I'ulisted  the  aid  of  his  relatives,  whose  errand  to  Jesus  seems  to  have 
been  in  connection  with  this  attempt.  His  mother  was  perforce 
with  them.  How  could  she  have  stood  aloof?  81ie  was  but  a  weak 
woman,  apparently  a  widow,  for  .Joseph  her  husband  is  never  alluded 
to.  In  that  position,  it  would  have  been  a  moral  impossibility  for 
her  to  disclose  now  any  of  the  miraculous  events  connected  with  the 
l)irth  of  her  first-born  son.  There  was  no  one  to  confirm  her  words. 
Who  would  lia\e  believed  them  ?  Tlie  apparent  insanity  of  the 
mother  in  making  such  a  statement  would  have  corroborated  the  idea 
of  insanity  in  Jesus.  How  must  her  heart  have  been  pierced  with 
grief,  her  soul  bowed  down  by  the  weight  of  conflicting  emotions  ! 
At  such  a  moment,  what  an  irony  must  it  have  seemed  to  extol  her 
happiness  as  mother  of  Jesus  !  Doubtless  the  angel's  words  held 
t  I'ue  :  '  Blessed  art  thou  among  women  ; '  yet  she  could  not  now  i  Luke  ss 
realise  their  truth,  but  was  undergoing  the  terrible  experience  fore- 
told to  her  by  Simeon,  that  her  son  would  be  '  for  a  sign  which  is-iLuUcsr. 
spoken  against ;  yea,  and  a  sword  shall  pierce  through  thine  own  soul.' 

Immediately  following  the  allusion  to  the  queen  of  the  south  and 
the  men  of  Nineveh,  Luke  gives  a  parable  not  repoi'ted  by  the  other 
evangelists.  It  has  an  obvious  bearing  upon  what  precedes,  and 
teaches  that  no  attesting  sign  was  necessary,  nothing  more,  indeed, 
than  what  was  already  at  hand,  if  only  a  rational  use  were  made  of 
the  ample  opportunities  for  light  and  knowledge.  'No  man,  when  n  Luke 33 
he  hath  lighted  a  lamp,  putteth  it  in  a  cellar,  neither  under  the 
bushel.'  The  Revisers  have  altered  '  secret  place '  to  '  cellar.' 
Alford  agrees  that  the  word  Iniptos  is  '  more  properly  a  cri/pt,  or 
covered  passage.'  It  would  be  the  act  of  a  fool  to  place  the  lamp 
where  its  light  cannot  be  seen,  taking  pains  to  smother  its  rays  when 
kindled.  As  a  matter  of  course,  it  must  occupy  a  conspicuous 
position  in  sight  of  all  comers  :  'but  on  the  stand,  that  they  which  „  33 
enter  in  may  see  the  light.'  Now  comes  the  application  of  the 
parable.  '  The  lamp  of  thy  body  is  thine  eye.'  This  stands  in  the  ^^  34 
Authorised  Version,  'The  light  of  the  body  is  the  eye.'  The 
Revisers  have  altered  '  light '  to  '  lamp,'  the  word  being  the  same  as 
that  rendered  '  lamp  '  in  the  previous  verse.  The  three  oldest  MSS. 
have  ' thine  eye,'  instead  of  '  the  eye  ; '  the  Re\isers  have  adopted 
that  reading,  but  have  gone  beyond  it,  by  putting  '  thy  body '  for 

E  2 


52  THE   KING    AND    THE    KINCWOM:  [part  ii. 

'the  body,'  which  Tischendorf  has  not  done,  but  renders:  '  Tlic 
lamp  of  the  body  is  thine  eye.'  A  man's  eyesi«:ht  answers  the  same 
purpose  as  a  lamp  :  l)y  it  he  sees  ;  without  it,  all  is  dark.  The 
illumination  of  the  entire  man  depends  upon  the  point  of  vision  ;  if 
that  is  unimpaired,  he  walks  confidently,  rejoicingly,  in  an  atmo- 
sphere of  light ;  but  if  that  is  defective,  in  proportion  to  the  defect 
he  must  live  in  darkness, — absolute  darkness  if  the  eyes  are  wholly 
11  Luke 04  blind.  'When  thine  eye  is  single,  thy  whole  body  also  is  full  of 
light ;  but  when  it  is  evil,  thy  body  also  is  full  of  darkness.'  xilfoni 
discards  the  expressions,  '  full  of  light,'  '  full  of  darkness,'  tran;;- 
lating  literally  '  light '  and  '  dark.'  Luther  does  the  same,  and 
Young's  rendering  is  :  '  When  thine  eye  may  be  simple,  thy  whole 
body  also  is  lightened  :  but  when  it  may  be  evil,  thy  body  also  is 
darkened.'     From  this  Jesus  draws  (1)  a  warning,  and  (2)  an  eii- 

„  ::5  couragement.  This  is  the  warning  :  '  Look  therefore  whether  the 
light  that  is  in  thee  be  not  darkness.'  This  som^^what  alters  the 
sense  of  the  Authorised  Version,  which  stands  :  '  Take  heed  there- 
fore that  the  light  which  is  in  thee  be  not  darkness.'  Young  agrees 
with  the  Authorised  Version.  Tischendorf  retains  '  Take  heed.'  but 
instead  of  '  be  not  darkness '  he  puts  '  is  not  darkness,'  which  admits 
the  sense  which  the  Revisers  have  introduced  by  using  the  word 
'  whether.'  They  represent  Jesus  as  urging  self-examination.  liCt 
those  who  desired  a  sign,  and  who  could  not  perceive  the  truth  of  his 
doctrine,  ask  themselves  whether  this  did  not  proceed  from  their  own 
defect  of  vision.  The  purest  hglit  is  darkness  to  the  blind,  and  no 
amount  of  external  illumination  would  avail  for  eyes  that  would  not 
or  could  not  see.  The  very  opposite  condition  might,  and  in  some; 
cases  did,  exist.  There  were  persons  who  saw  all  things  clearly,  and 
were  conscious  of  no  darkness,  however  much  others  might  grope  and 
stumble  and  complain  of  want  of  further  evidence.  This  certainty 
of  perception  was  attributable  to  the  same  internal  cause  :  their  moral 
vision  was  sound  and  true.  Let  men  only  rightly  cherish  and 
rationally  use  the  faculties  with  which  ({od  has  endowed  them,  and 
the  clear  light  of  truth  will  shine  within  them  and  around  them. 

"  ^'^  This  was  the  encouragement.  '  If  therefore  thy  whole  body  be  fall 
of  light,  having  no  part  dark,  it  shall  be  wholly  full  of  light,  as  when 
the  lamp  with  its  bright  shining  doth  give  thee  light.'  As  we  can 
place  the  lamp  where  we  will,  so  we  can  use  our  eyes  in  the  way  wo 
choose,  and  find  accordingly  darkness  or  light.  The  most  obvious 
truth  does  not  reveal  itself,  unless  contemplated  by  the  judgment ; 
assurance  with  respect  to  the  deepest  mysteries  must  sjiring  from  the 
exercise  of  our  reasoning  faculties.  There  is  such  a  thing  as  wilful 
blindness  :  men  cannot  perceive,  because  they  will  not  look  ;  or  they 
misjudge,  because  they  look  hastily  and  carelessly.  And  there  is  a 
partial  blindness,  a  defect  of  vision,  which  calls  for  external  aids  and 
correctives  ;  and  a  total  blindness,  where  there  is  utter  darkness." 
Jesus  by  this  parable  reminded  his  hearers  that  the  reception  or 
rejection  of  his  teaching  depended  upon  themselves. 

Luke  records  a  further  incident   which  is  not  found  elsewhere. 

Whilst  addressing  the  people,  Jesus  was  invited  by  a  Pharisee  to 

„    37      breakfast  with  him.     '  Now  as  he  spake,  a  Pharisee  asketh  him  to 

dine  (Gr.  breakfast)  with  him.'     We  may  assume  ihat  the  words  'as 


i>ART  II.]         A    STUDY    OF    THE    FOUll    aOSFELS.  53 

1)0  spake  '  do  uot  import  that  Jesus  was  internipted  for  the  purpose 
of  conveyiu<i,-  tlie  iuvitation,  as  though  it  came  iu  the  course  of  n 
sermon.  Jesus  did  not  g-eneniUy  dehver  set  harangues  of  tliat  kind, 
and  it  is  obvious  that  there  were  frequent  breaks,  wlien  the  hearers 
were  at  liberty  to  express  their  feelings  and  interpose  remarks  or 
<|uestions.  The  word  rendered  'dine,'  and  in  the  margin  '  breakfast,' 
is  explained  by  Alford  to  signify  the  first  meal  of  the  day.  Jesus 
accepted  the  invitation,  entered  the  house,  and  took  his  place;  at  the 
table.  '  And  he  went  in,  and  sat  down  to  meat,'  rendered  by  Young,  u  mi, 
'  and  having  gone  in,  he  reclined  (at  meat).'  The  astonishment  of 
the  Pharisee  was  excited,  and  in  some  way  expressed,  at  the  fact  of 
Jesus  neglecting  the  ablution  which  was  customary  before  meals. 
'  And  wheu  the  Pharisee  saw  it,  he  marvelled  that  he  had  not  first 
washed  before  dinner  ((.r.  breakfast).'  Youug  renders,  '  that  he  did 
not  first  baptize  himself  before  the  dinner.'  Doubtless  Jesus  deemed 
rlie  act  superfluous  at  that  comparatively  early  hour,  and  what  was 
not  requisite  for  cleanliness  he  would  not  perform  for  the  sake  of  a 
traditional  superstition.  He  was  iu  no  mood  to  defer  to  the  judg- 
ment and  feelings  of  the  class  of  men  who  had  that  xevj  morning 
accused  him  of  Satanic  agency,  and  he  now  deliberately  turned  round 
upon  his  opponents,  and  exposed  iu  plain,  unmitigated  terms  a 
variety  of  errors  and  evils  in  their  creed  and  life.  Had  Jesiis  made 
no  stand,  and  uttered  no  reproof^  his  enemies  might  have  been  en- 
couraged to  persevere  in  their  libellous  criticisms.  Their  object  was 
to  weaken  his  hold  and  influence  over  the  people,  and  not  for  an 
instant  would  he  suffer  that  design  to  prevail  by  submitting  in 
silence,  either  in  public  or  private,  to  their  unjust  accusations  and 
insinuations.  He  addressed  himself  to  his  host  on  the  question  now 
raised,  and  scrupled  not  to  contrast  the  Pharisaic  system  of  punc- 
tiliousness in  external  ceremonial  trifles,  with  their  utter  debasement 
of  character  and  disregard  of  moral  principle.  'And  the  Lord  said 
unto  him,  Now  do  ye  Pharisees  cleanse  the  outside  of  the  cup  and  of 
the  platter  ;  but  your  inward  part  is  full  of  extortion  and  wicked- 
ness.' The  word  '  extortion  '  takes  the  place  of  '  ravening '  in  the 
Authorised  Version.  Young  renders  it  'rapine;'  Tischendorf, 
'  robbery.'  The  charge  was  a  grave  one,  and  could  never  have  been 
made  if  it  had  not  been  notoriously  and  undeniably  true.  The 
Baptist  and  Jesus  denounced  with  equal  uncompromising  vehemence 
the  Pharisaic  class,  and  never  a  word  of  protest  came  from  the 
listening  crowds  ;  at  least,  we  read  of  none,  nor  of  any  vindication 
attempted  on  behalf  of  the  class  thus  publicly  accused.  Was  there 
not  consummate  folly  iu  all  this  hypocrisy  ?  Was  the  outside  only 
of  man's  nature  moulded  by  God,  and  not  the  inward,  spiritual 
([ualities, — that  they  should  so  care  for  the  former  and  fail  to 
cultivate  the  latter  ?  '  Ye  foolish  ones,  did  not  he  tliat  made  the 
outside  make  the  inside  also  ? '  By  altering  '  fools  '  to  '  foolish  ones,' 
the  Revisers  make  it  evident  that  the  term  was  not  used  in  contempt. 
Young  renders  it  *  unthinking  ! '  There  was  a  better  way  of  making 
food  '  clean '  than  by  the  scouring  of  cup  and  platter :  let  them  share 
it  with  the  poor,  and  they  need  have  no  scruples  of  conscience  as  to 
the  correct  way  of  eating  their  own  portion.  '  Howbeit  give  for 
alms  those  things  which  are  within  (or,  ye  can) ;  and  behold,  all 
things  are  clean  unto  you.'     Brotherly  kindness  ranked  higher  than 


i54  THE    KING    AND    THE    KINGDOM:  [pakt  ii. 

ccremouial  observances,  and  the  broad,  free  spirit  of  liberality  wonld 
replace  the  narrow  punctiliousness  of  ritualism.  The  Authorised 
Version  stands,  '  But  rather  give  alms  of  such  things  as  ye  have,' 
which  Alford  explains  to  be  '  literally,  the  things  inside.'  Tischendorf 
renders,  '  But  give  what  is  in  them  as  alms  ; '  Young,  '  But  the  what 
ye  have  give  as  alms.' 

It  was  a  characteristic  of  the  Pharisees,  a  reproach  and  evil  to 
them,  thus  to  prefer  the  little  to  the  great,  to  care  much  aliout 
religious  trifles,  and   nothing  about  justice  towards  men  and  heart- 

n  Luke  42  felt  devotion  to  Grod.  '  But  woe  unto  you  Pharisees!  for  ye  tithe 
mint  and  rue  and  every  lierb,  and  pass  over  judgment  and  the  love 
of  God.'  The  giving  of  the  tenth  part  of  a  man's  property  was 
regarded  by  them  as  a  cardinal  test  of  character,  the  surest  way,  and 
by  no  means  a  cheap  one,  of  acceptance  with  the  God  they  professed 
to  worship.     Elsewhere  Jesus  represents  a  Pharisee  as  enumerating 

IS  Luke  12  this  amoug  liis  other  virtues  :  '  I  give  tithes  of  all  that  I  get.'  What 
they  thus  gave,  as  they  deemed,  to  (iod,  was  probably  never  devoted 
to  the  real  service  of  humanity,  for  they  were  accused  by  Jesus  of 
looking  with  complacent  approval  on  the  man  who,  on  the  plea  of 

i.j  Jiai.  r.,  G  having  given  his  property  to  God,  withheld  it  from  the  support  ol' 
his  parents.  '  Give  for  alms  those  things  which  ye  can,'  was  the 
counsel  of  Jesus  to  them.  The  dedication  of  tithes  to  so-called 
divine  uses,  ranked  far  lower  in  his  esteem.  Then,  as  in  later  times, 
they  went  to  the  support  of  an  ecclesiastical  system,  and  its  spirit  of 
Pharisaic  propagandism  was  denounced  by  Jesus  as  bringing  about 

23  Mat.  15  results  the  very  reverse  of  beneficial  :  '  Woe  unto  you,  scribes  and 
Pharisees,  hypocrites  !  for  ye  compass  sea  and  land  to  make  one 
proselyte  ;  and  when  he  is  become  so,  ye  make  him  twofold  more  a 
son  of  hell  than  yourselves.' 

The  sense  of  proportion  was  inverted  in  these  men  :  in  their  eyes 
the  little  was  held  great  and  the  great  little  ;  the  first  was  put  last, 
and  the  last  first ;  the  fundamental  obligations  of  judgment  and  the 
love  of  God  were  ignored,  and  the  faculties  which  siiould  have  been 
concentrated  on  the  substantial  realities  of  morality,  were  wrapped 
up  in  the  skirts  and  fringes  of  ritualism  and  formality.    Jesus  sought 

11  Luke  42  to  make  this  clear  to  them,  saying, '  liut  these  ought  ye  to  have  done, 
and  not  to  leave  the  other  undone.'  The  heart-work  and  the  life- 
work  should  be  expended  on  what  was  most  important,  and  the 
leisure  would  suffice  for  the  minor  duties,  which  now  had  become,  if 
not  their  all  in  all,  at  least  their  primary  concern. 

Another  fault  of  character  in  them,  was  the  love  of  precedence. 
Seated  in  synagogues,  or  passing  through  the  public  streets,  they 
Avere  accustomed  to  the  first  place  and  the  most  obsequious  courtesy. 
Thus  to  lose  the  sense  of  fellowship  and  of  equality,  was  an  evil,  a 
regrettable  deprivation,  albeit  they  felt  it  not,  but  rejoiced  to  be 
singled  out  and  held  aloof  from  the  crowd  of  their  fellow  cieatures. 
„  43  '  Woe  unto  you  Pharisees  !  for  ye  love  the  chief  seats  in  the  syna- 
gogues, and  the  salutations  in  the  market-places.' 

The  homage  they  craved  and  received  was  altogether  undeserved. 
The  world  at  large  cared  not  to  enquire  into  their  true  character. 
When  a  social  gulf  exists  between  class  and  class,  it  is  surprising  how 
indilferent  and  ignorant  they  are  with  respect  to  each  other.  That  is 
the  case  now,  in  spite  of  a  free  press  and  the  habit  of  public  criticism. 


PART  iL.]         ,1    tiTUDY    OF    THE    FOUR    (UKSFFLS.  55 

Rank  and  wealth  arc  worshipped  apart  from  moral  charactur.  The 
toiling  multitudes  have  nearer  and  more  pressing  concerns  than  to 
investigate  nicely  the  habits  and  principles  of  their  '  betters.'  All 
Jiave  their  faults,  and  all  keep  them  out  of  sight  as  far  as  possible. 
That  immunity  the  JMiarisees  enjoyed,  in  common  with  others,  and 
it  served  but  to  perpetuate  their  unha])py,  woeful  condition.  '  Woe 
nnto  you !  for  ye  are  as  the  tombs  which  appear  not.  and  the  men 
that  Avalk  over  fkem  know  it  not.'  The  Authorised  ^'ersion  stands  : 
'  Woe  unto  you,  scribes  and  Pliarisees,  hypocrites  !  '  but  these  last  four 
words  are  omitted  by  the  Revisers,  not  being  in  the  two  oldest  MSS. 
At  this  point  of  the  discourse  a  lawyer  who  was  present  inter- 
posed the  remark,  that  this  condemnation  of  the  Pharisees  reflected 
also  upon  those  of  In's  own  profession.  'And  one  of  the  lawyers 
answering  saith  unto  him,  Master  (or,  Teacher),  in  saying  this  thou 
reproachest  us  also.'  Tischendorf  renders,  '  illtreatest,'  Young  '  in- 
sultest.'  Alford  obser\'es  :  '  This  man  appears  to  have  been  not  a 
common  Pharisee  merely,  but  besides,  a  lawijer,  whose  duty  it  espe- 
cially was  to  interpret  the  law.  Perhaps  he  found  himself  involved 
in  the  censure  of  verse  42.'  That  explains  why  this  lawyer  applied 
this  reproach  to  his  own  class.  It  was  their  duty  to  define  the  obli- 
gations of  the  Mosaic  law,  and  to  insist  upon  the  due  performance  of 
all  its  requirements.  It  \vas  they  who  taught  the  necessity  of  tithiiig 
'mint  and  rue  and  e\"cry  kind  of  herb.'  Why  should  they  be  charged 
with  that  as  though  it  were  a  crime  ?  Why  should  it  be  assumed 
that  they  passed  over  weightier  matters  ?  Jesus  replied  that  the 
curse,  the  error,  the  e\il,  the  woe, — either  term  seems  applicable, — 
attaching  to  their  iH'ofession,  was  that  of  indifference  to  human 
weakness  and  to  the  stern  necessities  and  facts  of  ordinary  life.  It 
was  easy  work  for  them  to  spin  out  interpretations  of  the  Law,  multi- 
plying its  obligations  and  enforcing  the  duty  of  obedience  in  every 
point ;  but  when  they  had  piled  up  that  burden,  so  that  it  lay  liea\y 
upon  the  consciences  of  men,  could  or  did  these  teachers  of  the  Law 
give  the  slightest  help  towards  fulfilling  it  ?  They  could  teach,  but 
they  could  not  give  either  the  will  or  the  power  to  practise.  They 
were  simply  overloading  human  nature,  overtasking  human  endur- 
ance, utterly  heedless  of  the  evil  and  misery  resulting  from  their 
unwise  teachings.  'And  he  said,  Woe  unto  you  lawyers  also!  for  ye 
lade  men  with  burdens  grievous  to  be  borne,  and  ye  yourselves  touch 
not  the  burdens  with  one  of  your  fingers.'  Is  there  nothing  akin  to 
this  in  these  days  ?  Xo  similar  unauthorised,  injudicious  teaching  ? 
Preachers  are  e\er  insisting  upon  a  variety  of  duties  which  are  per- 
formed half-heartedly,  unwillingly,  aye,  hypocritically,  by  some,  and 
deliberately  disregarded  by  others.  '  You  should  pray  more,  come  to 
church  to  pray,  pray  in  your  closets  and  families, — Hod  loves  to  be 
prayed  to,'  What  ?  is  prayer  to  be  deemed  a  duty,  so  that  man 
must  pray  verbally,  apart  from  the  sense  of  want  and  desire  ?  Is  our 
heavenly  Father  so  strange  a  Being  as  to  be  angry  with  his  children 
if  they  are  not  always  asking  him  for  the  very  things  he  is  always, 
unasked,  freely  giving  them  ?  Surely  some  hideous  blunder  lies  at 
the  foundation  of  such  a  system  of  teaching.  '  You  should  watch 
and  pray  in  Advent,  you  should  keep  Lent,  with  fast  and  prayer  for 
forty  days,  you  should  observe  the  holy  Easter  week,  and  ponder 
Ohrist  upon  the  cross  every  Good  Friday,'  and  so  on,  and  so  on. 


56  THE    KING    AND    THE    KINCWOM :  [part  ii. 

Alas  for  the  minds  Avhich  can  esteem  this  as  Christianity,  and 
persuade  or  be  persuaded  to  submit  to  such  a  yearly  routine,  as 
though  it  had  aught  to  do  with  the  glorious  gospel  of  our  Lord  and 
SaA'iour  Jesus  Christ !  Erroneous  teaching  of  that  kind  involves 
mental  and  spiritual  evil  all  round.  There  is  a  perverted  sense  of 
duty,  a  mistaken  idea  of  acceptableness  to  God,  and  of  Christian 
virtue  and  perfection,  in  the  teacher  and  his  submissive  devotees  ; 
and  in  those  who  listen  to  such  exhortations,  and  obey  them  not, 
often,  probably,  an  injury  to  the  moral  nature,  a  searing  of  the  con- 
science, a  feeling  of  wrong  doing  ^\hich  they  cannot  away  with,  a 
haunting  sense  of  alienation  from  that  heavenly  Father  who  must 
needs  become  nearer  and  dearer  to  every  willing  soul  whenever  the 
true  gospel  of  salvation  is  rightly  and  wisely  proclaimed.  Not  one 
in  a  thousand  of  a  congregation  may  be  sufficiently  strong-minded, 
clear-headed,  endowed,  through  earnest,  independent,  long-continued 
study  of  the  New  Testament,  with  the  knowledge  and  spiritual  dis- 
cernment necessary  to  enable  him  to  sift  the  chaff  from  the  wheat, 
the  false  from  the  true,  the  thoughts  of  men  from  the  words  of  Jesus, 
in  the  sermons  to  which  it  is  our  lot  to  listen.  On  behalf  of  those 
commonly  denounced  as  neglectful  hearers,  it  behoves  us  to  raise  this 
firm  and  emphatic  protest.  They  stand  before  their  spiritual  teachers 
like  sullen,  obstinate,  unhappy  children,  unwisely  taught,  unwisely 
threatened,  unwisely  dealt  with  from  first  to  last  by  well-meaning 
but  misguided  and  misguiding  pedagogues.  The  children  are  deemed 
rebellious  because  they  will  not  bow  to  a  yoke  against  which  their 
very  nature  revolts,  nor  stoop  to  lift  the  burden  so  carefully  bound 
up  by  those  who  are  persuaded  that  this  load  of  man's  devising  was 
meant  for  e^■ery  back,  and  that  the  duty  exists  of  carrying  it  by  an 
effort  which  must  be  personal  and  individual.  '  Ye  lade  men  with 
burdens  grievous  to  be  borne,  and  ye  yourselves  touch  not  the 
i)urdens  with  one  of  your  fingers.'  Regarded  as  a  simple  state- 
ment of  fact,  apart  from  any  idea  of  condemnation  or  reproach,  is  not 
this  true  ? 

The  scribes,  devoting  themselves  to  antiquarian  and  legal  re- 
searches, were  out  of  harmony  with  the  times.  They  foolishly  busied 
themselves  in  attempts  to  perpetuate  the  memory  of  events  long  past, 
and  which  it  would  have  been  better  to  veil,  if  not  to  forget.  They 
had  no  sympathy  w'ith  living  prophets  and  reformers,  with  John  the 
Baptist  and  Jesus,  but  they  would  fain  have  the  old  prophets  kejDt  in 
mind.  Not  content  to  '  let  the  dead  Past  bury  its  dead,'  they  had 
undertaken  the  task  of  searching  out  and  renovating  the  martyrs' 
tombs.  It  was  another  mistake  of  judgment,  another  misapplication 
of  the  thought  and  energy  which  should  be  consecrated  to  '  the  living 
n  Luk(  47  Present.'  '  Woe  unto  you  !  for  ye  build  the  tombs  of  the  prophets, 
and  your  fathers  killed  them.'  It  may  be  doubted  whether  the  ex- 
])ression  '  woe  unto  you '  conveys  the  sense  of  the  original.  Samuel 
Sharpe  discarded  it,  using  in  each  case  the  modern  form  of  exclama- 
tion, 'alas  ! '  'Alas  for  you,  for  ye  build  the  tombs  of  the  prophets, 
and  your  fathers  killed  them.'  That  rendering  does  away  with  the 
idea  that  Jesus  intended  to  denounce  divine  vengeance,  immediate  or 
remote,  on  those  he  was  addressing.  His  reiterated  '  woe  '  or  '  alas ' 
was  a  lamentation  over  their  unhappy  state  of  mind  and  heart.  He 
now  points  out  to  them  the  startling  fact,  that  their  connection  with 


PART  II.]         A    STUJJY    OF    THE    FOUR    GOSPELS.  57 

the  past  was  clciser  than  they  themselves  would  be  disposed  to  admit. 
In  honouriuu'  the  martyred  saints  the_>  were  condemning  themselves,^ 
for  they  were  animated  by  the  same  si)irit  and  walked  in  the  steps  of 
their  forefathers  who  had  slain  the  prophets.     '  So  ye  are  witnesses  n  i.uu-  k 
and  consent  unto  the  works  of  your  fathers  :  for  they  killed  them, 
and  ye  build  thrir   tombs:     The  two  last  words  are  italicised  by  the 
llevisers,  not  being  in  the  two  oldest  MSS.     Ti^chendorf  renders  : 
'  For   they   indeed'  killed   them,  and  ye   build.'     Imagine   the  de- 
scendants of  a  murderer  subscribing  to  repair  and  renovate  the  grave 
of  his  victim  !     What  an  anomaly,  what  a  per^-ersion  of  the  moral 
sense,  what  unblushing  effi-ontery  !  the  world  would  say.     Surely  the 
memory  of  such  a  dec'd  should  cause  the  cheek  to  burn  with  shame; 
it  was  a  crime  to  be  spoken  of  with  horror,  not  thus  dragged  forth  to 
the  hght  of  day.     That  it  was  part  of  a  chapter  in  ecclesiastical 
liistory,  one  of  those  bloody  pages  whicli  defile  the  records  of  theo- 
logical strife,— that  the  authors \)f  the  deed  escaped  the  punishment 
due  to  all  murderers,  this  made  no  difference  in  the  enormity  of  the 
guilt  or  the  detestation  in  which  it  should  be  held.     The  Jews  stood 
alone  in  tliis  respect :   the  charge  of  killing  heaven-sent  prophets 
could  not  apply  to  heathen  nations.     God  in  his  wisdom  had  decided 
to  send  from  time  to  time  to  his  chosen  people  teachers  and  special 
messengers.     '  Therefore  also  said  the  wisdom  of  God,  I  will  send      „    4-> 
unto  them  prophets  and  apostles.'     Their  divine  commission  could 
not  exempt  them  from  its  foreseen  consequences  :  some  of  them  were 
doomed  to  death  and  persecution  ;  but  their  blood  would  not  remain 
unavenged.     To  this  people,  from  the  beginning  of  human  history, 
had  the'se  prophets  been  sent,  and  from  this  people  the  innocent  blood 
they  had  shed  would  be  required  :  '  and  some  of  them  they  shall  kill      -    "•'> 
and  persecute  :    that  the  blood  of  all  the  prophets,  which  was  shed 
from  the  foundation  of  the  world,  may  be  required  of  this  generation.' 
AVhat  a  catalogue  of  murdered  religious  teachers  from  hrst  to  last ! 
'  From  the  blood  of  Abel  nnto  the  blood  of  Zachariah,  who  perished      .,    &' 
between  the  altar  and  the  sanctuary  (Gr.  house).'    It  is  uncertain  who 
this  Zachariah  was,  but  the  peculiar  atrocity  connected  with  his  death 
is  indicated  by  the  circumstance  of  his  having  been  butchered  in  the 
[)riests'  court,  probably  whilst  engaged  in  his  priestly  duties.     All 
this  bloodshed  would  have  to  be  accounted  for :  '  yea,  I  say  unto  you,      '-    -'^ 
it  shah  be  required  of  this  generation.'     Human  life  was  still  as 
sacred  in  the  eyes  of  God  as  when  he  first  declared  :  '  Surely  your  '•'  Gen.  r, 
blood,  fhi'  blood  of  your  lives,  will  I  require.'    Divine  Pro\idencc  still 
worked  to  the  same  end  as  when,  after  long   yeai's  of.  immunity, 
Reuben  was  constrained  to  remind  his  brethren:  '  Spake  I  not  unto  -f-i  Gii'..  •_'■_» 
you,  saying.  Do  not  sin  against  the  child  ;  and  ye  would  not  hear  ? 
"therefore  also,  behold,  his  blood  is  required.'     But  how  could  the 
.Jewish  people  be  held  responsible  for  the  death  of  Abel  ?    This  opens 
out  the  wider  question.  How  could  that  generation  have  to  answer  for 
the  cumulative  blood-guiltiness  of  past  ages  ?     By  the  slow,  silent, 
inevitable,  retributive  workings  of  Divine  Providence.     It  is  not  that 
one  man  answers  for  another  man's  sin,  but  that  the  law  of  natural 
descent  transmits  the  habits  and  dispositions  of  ancestors  to  children. 
It  is  an  indubitable  fact  that  God  has  organised  our  existence  on 
that  basis,  so  that  evil  is  thus  perpetuated  for  a  lengthened  period, 
and  good  for  a  far  longer  period.     The  evil  qualities  have  a  tendency 


58  THE   KING    AND    THE    KINGDOM:  [part  ii. 

to  die  out  in  three  or  four  generations,  -whereas  tlie  inherited  eflFects 
of  a  virtuous  hfe  endure  to  tlie  remotest  posterity.   This  is  the  solemn 

10  Ex.  0,  0  truth  enunciated  in  the  declaration  :  '  For  I  the  Lord  thy  (Jod  am  a 
jealous  God,  visitinp;  the  iniquity  of  the  fathers  upon  the  children, 
upon  the  third  and  upon  the  fourth  generation  of  them  that  hate  me  ; 
and  showing  mercy  unto  a  thousand  generations  of  them  that  Ionc 
me  and  keep  my  commandments.'  The  divine  teaching  by  means  of 
inspired  prophets,  and  the  divine  interferences  in  the  shape  of  defeats 
and  captivities,  Avere  designed  to  bring  the  Jewish  people  to  a  better 
mind,  to  counteract  the  evil  effects  of  the  bad  blood  inherited  from 
their  sinning  and  rebelhous  forefathers;  but  tlie  experience  of  many 

•ActsJi-03  centuries  was  finally  thus  summed  up  by  the  martyr  Stephen:  'Ye 
stiffnecked  and  uncircumcised  in  heart  and  ears,  ye  do  always  resist 
the  Holy  Ghost :  as  your  fathers  did,  so  do  ye.  Which  of  the  prophets 
did  not  your  fathers  persecute  ?  and  they  killed  tliem  which  shewed 
before  of  the  coming  of  the  Righteous  One  ;  of  whom  ye  have  now 
become  betrayers  and  murderers  ;  ye  who  received  the  law  as  it  was 
ordained  by  angels,  and  kept  it  not.'  Jesus  threw  away  his  life  and 
labours  in  efforts  to  bring  them,  as  a  nation,  to  a  better  mind.  At 
the  end,  he  could  only  say  to  the  blind  directors  of  tlie  public  con- 

aMr.t.  02  science,  'Fill  ye  up  then  the  measure  of  your  fathers,"  and  Avitli 
streaming  eyes  bewail  the  approaching  doom  of  that  fair  metropolis 
of  Judaea  whose  children  he  would  have  gathered  together  and  pro- 
tected, if  only  they  would  have  deigned  to  listen  and  obey.  No\v  they 
must  be  left  to  the  consequences  of  their  long-continued  guilt  and 
obstinacy :  the  conquering  hosts  of  the  unsparing  Romans  would  seek 
by  fire  and  blood  to  discipline  the  people  to  their  sway,  the  nation 
would  resist  to  the  death,  Jefusalem  must  be  destroyed,  tlie  temple, 
the  priesthood,  and  the  whole  system  of  religious  worship  be  abolished, 
and  the  surviving  Jews  scattered  to  the  four  winds.  On  that  gene- 
ration would  thus  fall  the  terrible  consummation  of  past  transgres- 
sions, and  in  one  huge  catastrophe  of  bloody  massacre  all  the  innocent 
blood  of  past  ages  would  '  be  required  of  this  generation.' 

Alas  !    for  these  lawyers,   for  they  stood  as  absolute  stumbling- 

1  L^l^^o,vJ  blocks  in  the  path  of  intellectual  progress.  '  Woe  unto  you  lawyers  I 
for  ye  took  away  the  key  of  knowledge.'  Xot  content  with  turning 
their  own  backs  upon  mental,  moral,  spiritual  advancement,  they  had 
„  .V2  barred  the  way  of  access  against  others.  '  Ye  entered  not  in  your- 
selves, and  them  that  were  entering  in  ye  hindered.'  Is  there  not  ;i 
warning  here  sgainst  all  attempts  to  stereotype  the  religious  ideas 
and  convictions  of  one  age,  so  they  may  be  perpetuated  to  remote 
generations  ?  The  Reformers  of  the  Church  of  England  three  cen- 
turies ago  drew  up  39  Articles,  and  from  that  day  to  this  they  stand 
unrepealed  and  unaltered.  The  object  was  to  ensure  imiformity  of 
opinion,  that  vain,  unrealisable  dream  of  theologians.  They  were 
'  agreed  upon  by  the  Archbishops  and  Bishops  of  both  ]*rovinces,  and 
the  whole  Clergy,  in  the  Convocation  holdeu  at  London  in  the  year 
loGi?,  for  the  avoiding  of  Diversities  of  Opinions  and  for  the  estab- 
lishing of  Consent  touching  true  Religion.'  The  Declaration  of  the 
King  impused  upon  all  persons  submission  to  the  Articles  '  in  the 
plain  and  full  meaning  .  .  in  the  literal  and  grammatical  sense,'  and 
the  ]3eclaration  ends  thus  :  '  That  if  any  Public  Reader  in  either  of 
Our  Universities,  or  any  Head  or  Master  of  a  College,  or  any  other 


TAHT  II.]         A    STUDY    OF    THE    FOUR    GOSPELS.  r.!> 

l^erson  respectively  in  either  of  them,  shall  affix  any  new  sense  to  any 
Article,  or  shall  publicly  read,  determine,  or  hold  any  public  Dispu- 
tation, or  suflVr  any  such  to  be  held  cither  way,  in  either  the  Uni- 
versities or  Colle<i-es  respectively  ;  or  if  any  Divine  in  the  Universities 
shall  preach  or  })rint  anythino-  either  way,  other  than  is  ah-eady 
established  in  Convocation  with  our  Royal  Assent :  he,  or  they  the 
Offenders,  shall  be  liable  to  Our  displeasure,  and  the  Church's  censui'c 
in  our  Commission  Ecclesiastical,  as  weh  as  any  other  ;  and  We  will 
see  there  shall  be  due  Execution  upon  them.'  AVhat  is  that  but  an 
attempt  to  '  take  away  the  key  of  kno\vled<i,-e  ?  ' 

The  outspoken  condemnation  of  the  Pharisees  and  lawyers  by 
Jesus  provoked  them  beyond  measure.  They  retaliated  to  the  utmost 
of  their  power.  Upon  his  leaving  the  house  they  began  to  oppose 
liim  vigorously.  'And  when  he  Avas  come  out  from  thence,  the  ii  i-nio-.-ia 
scribes  and  the  Pharisees  began  to  ])ress  u])oii  him  vehemently  (or. 
set  themselves  vehemently  against  him),  and  to  provoke  him  to  speak 
of  many  (or,  more)  things.'  The  Authorised  Version  stands  :  '  iind 
as  he  said  these  things  unto  them,  the  scribes  and  the  Pharisees 
began  to  urge  him  vehemently.'  The  Revisers  have  altered  '  As  he 
said  these  things '  into  '  When  he  was  come  out  from  thence,'  on  the 
authority  of  the  two  oldest  MS8. 

Instead  of  taking  to  heart  tlie  solemn  condemnation  of  Jesus,  those 
who  were  the  objects  of  it  now  sought  to  browbeat  him  by  a  simul- 
taneous attack.  Young  describes  the  scene  in  these  words  :  '  The 
scribes  and  the  Pharisees  began  fearfully  to  urge  and  to  provoke  him 
about  many  things.'  The  more  he  could  be  induced  to  say,  the 
better  for  their  purpose,  for  if  only  they  could  hnd  ground  to  charge 
him  Avith  slander  or  libel,  and  bring  him  within  the  clutch  of  the 
law,  they  would  thereby  be  able  to  silence  him,  and  revenge  his 
assault   upon   their    reputation  ;    '  laying   wait    for  him,   to   catch  ■'^ 

something  out  of  his  mouth.'  The  Authorised  Version  adds  :  '  that 
they  might  accuse  him,'  Avhich  is  now  omitted  as  not  being  found  in 
the  two  oldest  MSS. 

Luke  intimates  that  during  the  breakfast  and  discourse  in  the 
Pharisee's  h.ouse  an  enormous  crowd  had  assembled,  and  that  Jesus, 
before  addressing  them,  dropped  a  few  words  of  warning  to  his 
disciples.  '  In  the  mean  time,  Avhen  the  many  thousands  of  (Gr.  i-  i'»i<^^'  ^ 
myriads  of)  the  multitude  were  gathered  together,  insomuch  that  they 
trode  one  upon  another,  he  began  to  say  unto  his  disciples  first  of  all 
(or,  First  of  all),  Beware  ye  of  the  leaven  of  the  Pharisees,  which  is 
hypocrisy.'  Tischendorf  renders  :  '  In  the  mean  time,  Avlien  the 
multitude  was  gathered  together  in  tens  of  thousands,  insomuch  that 
they  trode  one  upon  another,  he  began  to  say  unto  his  disciples 
first  .  .'  The  expression  '  he  began  to  say,'  seems  to  indicate  that  his 
discourse  was  interrupted,  probably  owing  to  the  crowd  outside.  The 
i'evf  words  he  uttered  were  '  unto  his  disciples  first,'  before  he  went  out 
to  face  tlie  multitude.  He  bade  them  avoid  that  cardinal  vice  of  the 
Pharisees,  that  leaven  which  permeated  their  character  and  actions — 
hypocrisy.  But  now  Luke  goes  on  with  a  discourse  of  Jesus  of  some 
length,  from  verse  2  to  12.  Those  verses  have  already  been  con- 
sidered in  connection  with  the  instructions  given  to  the  disciples 
before  sending  them  out  to  preach,  as  recorded  in  the  tenth  chapter 
of  Matthew.     This  part  of  Luke's  narrative  appears  to  have  been 


CO  THE    KING    AND    THE   KINGDOM:  [part  ii. 

misplaced.  A  lont?  address  of  that  kind  was  not  likely  to  be  delivered 
to  the  disciples  while  the  multitudes  were  elbowing  and  crushing- 
each  other.  It  is  probable  that  liuke,  having  that  part  of  the  dis- 
course without  any  indication  as  to  its  proper  place,  inserted  it  where 
he  thought  it  would  come  in  most  appropriately,  and  the  warning 
against  hypocrisy  seemed  to  be  a  fit  introduction  to  the  opening 

iL'Luia-'  sentence,  'But  there  is  nothing  covered  up  that  shall  not  be 
revealed.'  This  idea  is  somewhat  strengthened  by  the  fact  that  the 
connecting  word  '  but '  is  omitted  in  the  oldest  MS. 

Among  these  1 1  misplaced  verses  of  Luke  is  one  which  does  not 
„    w     even  belong  to  the  same  group.     Verse  10  is  as  follows  :  'And  every 
one  who  shall  speak  a  word  against  the  Son  of  man,  it  shall  be  for- 
given him  :  but  unto  him  that  blasphemeth  against  the  Holy  Spirit 

u'jiNt.  3l'     it  shall  not  be  forgiven.'     This  is  given  by  Matthew  and  Mark  in 

:i  Mail;  2s-:!0  rounectiou  with  the  charge  of  casting  out  demons  by  Beelzebub,  and 
it  should  obviously  have  been  inserted  by  Luke  in  his  account  of  the 
same  matter,  that  is,  between  verses  23  and  24  of  chapter  11.  It  is 
a  reasonable  supposition  that  Luke,  having  a  large  mass  of  material 
before  him  in  the  shape  of  information  and  tradition  fi-om  various 
sources,  and  exercising  the  greatest  care  in  assorting  and  compiling- 
it,  may  sometimes  have  been  in  doubt  as  to  the  proper  position  to  be 
occupied  by  particular  portions,  and  selected  for  them  the  place  which 
seemed  on  the  whole  most  appropriate.  Had  the  narratives  of 
Matthew  and  Mark  been  before  him,  they  would  have  enabled  him  to 
fix  the  above-mentioned  verse  in  its  right  position. 

Among  the  crowd  gathered  before  Jesus  was  one  who  made  him- 
self conspicuous  by  requesting  a  special  favour.  He  was  smarting 
under  a  sense  of  injustice  :  the  whole  of  an  inheritance  had  fallen  to 
his  brother,  and  he  begged  Jesus  to  use  his  influence  on  his  behalf, 
and  urge  upon  this  brother  that  he  ought  to  consent  to  an  equal 

]2Lnkii:5  division  of  the  property.  '  And  one  out  of  the  multitude  said  unto 
him.  Master  (or,  Teacher),  bid  my  brother  divide  the  inheritance  with 
me.'  Jesus  showed  no  sympatliy  with  the  request.  He  sternly 
reminded  the  man  that  the  performance  of  such  a  function  lay  alto- 
,-  1-1  gether  outside  his  appointed  sphere  of  duty.  '  But  he  said  unto  him, 
Man,  who  made  me  a  judge  or  a  divider  over  you  ? '  Holding  no 
official  position,  it  was  not  for  him  to  investigate  complaints  and 
apportion  justice  ;  nor  could  any  friend  attempt  to  arbitrate,  or  argue 
the  merits  of  the  question,  having  heard  one  party  only.  But 
whether  any  injustice  existed  or  not,  or  on  whichever  side  the  wrong- 
lay,  this  squabbling  about  property  might  well  form  the  text  for  a 
sermon  against  covetousness.  Here  was  a  warning  to  shake  one's 
..  I'  self  free  from  that  vice  in  every  sha])e.  'And  he  said  unto  them, 
Take  heed,  and  keep  yourselves  from  all  covetousness.'  The  word 
'  all '  has  been  introduced  by  the  Revisers  on  the  authority  of  the  three 
,,  ir.  oldest  MSS.  Whatever  is  superfluous  to  life  is  not  essential  :  '  for  a 
man's  life  cousisteth  not  in  the  abundance  of  the  things  which  he 
possesseth  (Gr.  for  not  in  a  man's  abundance  cousisteth  his  life,  for 
the  things  which  he  possesseth).'  The  literal  translation  in  the 
'  Englishman's  Greek  New  Testament '  is  :  '  for  not  in  the  abundance 
to  anyone  his  life  is  of  that  which  he  possesses.'  The  Greek  word 
rendered  '  abundance '  really  signifies  '  superabundance,'  the  sub- 
stantive pcrissnima  being  so  defined,  and  the  verb  j-inisseiid,  which  is 
here   used,   meaning  :    '  to  be  over  and  above  ;    to   be   more  thap 


TART  II.]         -1    STUJ>Y    OF    THE    FOUR    GOSFELS.  61 

enough.'  Any  superfluity  is  useless  ;  it  can  neither  nourish  nor  in 
any  way  benefit  the  person  who  has  it.  This  very  simple,  yet 
almost  uuiversally  forgotten  truth,  Jesus  illustrated  by  a  parable.  He 
pictured  a  rich  landowner  rejoiciug  over  unusually  abundant  harvests. 
The  yield  was  so  great,  that  he  was  somewhat  per[)le.\ed  about  its 
storage.  '  And  he  spake  a  parable  unto  them,  saying,  The  ground 
of  a  certain  rich  man  brought  forth  ])lentifully  :  and  he  reasoned 
within  himself,  saying.  What  shall  1  do,  because  I  have  not  iJ  f.mU, 
where  to  bestow  my  fruits  ? '  He  decided  to  improve  and  enlarge 
his  homestead,  pulling  down  the  old  barns  and  erecting  larger 
ones,  where  there  would  be  ample  room  for  everything.  '  And  he 
said,   This   will   I   do  :    I   will    pull    down   my   barns,   and   build  ' 

greater  ;  and  there  will  I  bestow  all  my  corn  and  my  goods.'  The 
Authorised  Version  reads,  'all  my  fruits  and  my  goods.'  The  Revisers 
have  followed  the  Alexandrine  MS.  in  replacing  '  fruits  '  by  '  com.' 
The  Sinaitic  MS.  omits  'and  my  goods.'  That  done,  he  would  dismiss 
from  his  mind  all  anxiety.  He  need  not  trouble  himself  about  the 
future,  for  henceforth  he  could  take  his  business  and  his  pleasure 
easily.  He  would  rest  and  be  thankful,  enjoying  during  the  many 
years  to  which  he  looked  forward  tlie  good  tilings  of  life  freely  and 
heartily.  '  And  I  will  say  to  my  soul  (or,  life),  Soul  (or,  life),  thou  •■  ' 
hast  much  goods  laid  up  for  many  years  ;  take  thine  ease,  eat,  drink, 
be  merry.'  But  in  the  midst  of  all  this  prosperity,  self-satisfaction, 
and  bright  anticipations,  there  came  to  him  a  sudden  summons  to  face 
— Death.  That  was  one  of  the  possibilities  he  had  overlooked.  All  his 
wealth  could  not  prolong  his  life,  not  even  for  a  day.  In  all  haste 
he  must  make  his  last  will,  and  decide  who  should  inherit  the  pro- 
perty he  could  enjoy  no  longer.  '  But  God  said  unto  him.  Thou 
foolish  one,  this  night  is  thy  soul  (or,  life)  required  of  thee  (or,  they 
require  thy  soul)  ;  and  the  things  which  thou  hast  prepared,  whose 
shall  they  be  ?  '  That  is  the  case  of  every  man  who  amasses  wealth 
for  the  future,  but  whose  trust  is  in  uncertain  riches  rather  than  in 
God.  '  So  is  he  that  layeth  up  treasure  for  himself,  and  is  not  rich 
toward  God.'  Man's  only  true  wealth  is  confidence  in  (iod.  His  daily 
bread  must  nourish  our  lives,  and  to  store  up  the  bread  as  though  it 
sufficed  apart  from  the  Giver,  will  lead  to  a  sudden  shock,  a  rougli 
awakening  from  the  dream  of  covetousness  to  the  realities  of  life  and 
death. 

Commentators  have  carried  this  parable  beyond  its  proper  scope. 
Alford  says  :  '  It  was  &//  God's  blessing  that  he  became  thus  rich, 
which  might  have  been  a  real  blessing,  if  he  had  known  how  to  use 
it ; '  and  he  quotes  Ambrose  :  '  Thou  hast  barns — the  bosoms  of  the 
poor,  the  houses  of  widows,  the  mouths  of  infants  .  .  these  are  the 
barns  which  will  last  for  ever.'  Jesus  did  not  speak  the  parable  to 
enforce  the  duty  of  almsgiving,  but  to  show  that  life  did  not  depend 
upon  superabundance,  and  that  whoever  acted  under  the  idea  that 
it  did,  was  !a  foolish  person,  and  would  be  forced  to  recognise  his 
folly  at  the  last.  If  this  rich  man  had  given  freely — perhaps  he  did 
— he  could  not  thereby  lengthen  his  life,  nor  could  any  amount  of 
alms-giving  wean  him  from  the  fond  delusion  that  he  had  many 
years  of  healthy,  happy,  enjoyable  life  in  reserve.  He  is  represented 
as  simply  forgetting — it  is  a  common  and  terrible  forge tfulness — 
that  '  the  life  is  more  than  the  food,  and  the  body  than  the  raiment.' 


G2  THE    KIXG    AND    THE    KINGDOM :  [i-art  ii. 

vi  i.ukf  -ii  The  next  10  verses  in  Luke  are  prefaced  by  the  words  '  And  ho 
said  unto  his  disciples.'  This  indicates  that  they  formed  no  ])ortion 
of  the  address  spoken  at  this  time  to  the  multitude.  They  have 
ah'eady  been  considered  in  connection  with  (>  Matthew  25 — 34,  and 
they  appear  to  have  formed  part  of  the  sermon  on  the  Mount, 
although  placed  apart  by  Luke.  But  what  follows  is  recorded  by 
Luke  only,  and  is  evidently  part  of  an  address  to  the  disciples,  not 
restricting  that  term  to  the  apostles.  Jesus  sought  to  impart  to  them 
„  3:2  courage  and  hope.  '  Fear  not,  little  flock ;  for  it  is  your  Father's 
good  pleasure  to  give  you  the  kingdom.'  Although  few  in  number, 
they  were  a  flock,  held  together  and  watched  over.  Their  heavenly 
Father  intended  that  they  should  rise  to  higher  privileges  and 
responsibilities.  Young's  literal  rendering  is  striking  :  '  for  your 
Father  delighted  to  give  you  the  reign.'  Seeking  things  above,  they 
could  well  afford,  and  Jesus  counsels  them,  to  disembarrass  themselves 
••  ^•"'  of  earthly  possessions.  '  Sell  that  ye  have,  and  give  alms.'  Tischen- 
dorf  renders  :  '  Sell  your  goods.'  The  advice  is  obviously  for  those 
who  are  called  upon  to  give  up  worldly  trading  and  affairs  and  devote 
tiieir  lives  to  the  establishment  of  the  new  order  of  things,  the  reign 
of  the  heavens.  They  would  be  making  a  good  exchange  :  providing- 
a  purse  for  the  future  which  would  never  wear  out,  and  an  inex- 
r,  ^-  haustible  treasure  for  their  use  in  a  better  world.  '  Make  for  your- 
selves purses  which  wax  not  old,  a  treasure  in  the  heavens  that  faileth 
:,  ■•>■■''  not.'  It  would  be  beyond  all  risk  of  loss  or  damage  :  '  where  no 
thief  draweth  near,  neither  moth  destroyeth.'  There  was  a  need  for 
these  precepts,  because  the  work  in  which  they  were  to  engage 
demanded  their  entire  devotion,  and  as  no  worldly  emolument  could 
be  hoped  for,  they  must  be  animated  by  the  thought  of  a  heavenly 
■•  -'-^  recompense.  '  For  Avhere  your  treasure  is,  there  will  your  heart  be 
also.'  If  they  parted  with  their  earthly  possessions  and  ambitions,  it 
was  that  they  might  be  free,  not  to  beg  but  to  work,  and  that  for  a 

10  Luke  7  better  final  recompense.  Jesus  recognised  the  fact  that  '  the 
labourer  is  worthy  of  his  hire,'  but  he  led  his  apostles  to  expect  no 

'.» i.  Cor.  14  more  than  meat  and  drink,  ordaining  that  '  they  which  proclaim  the 
gospel  should  live  of  the  gospel.'  A  bare  livelihood  on  earth,  in 
return  for  much  labour  and  suffering,  and  a  treasure  unfailing  in 
heaven, — that  was  what  Jesus  offered  his  disciples.     He  would  have 

ij  Lukr  ;i.\  them  maintain  an  attitude  of  watchfulness  and  expectation.  '  Let 
■'"  your  loins  be  girded  about,  and  your  lamps  burning  ;  and  be  ye  your- 
selves like  unto  men  looking  for  their  lord,  when  he  shall  return  from 
the  marriage  feast ;  that  when  he  cometh  and  knocketh,  they  may 
straightway  open  unto  him.'  The  simile  must  be  looked  at  as  a 
whole.  The  girding  of  the  loins  seems  to  signify  the  shortening  and 
tightening  of  the  loose  outer  garment,  so  that  the  wearer  might  be 
ready  at  any  moment  to  walk  swiftly  and  unimpeded  ;  the  lamps 
burning  may  denote  the  lights  required  by  ser\ants  waiting  to  admit 
their  lord  on  his  return  from  a  marriage  feast.  Alford  observes  : 
'  There  is  only  a  hint  at  the  cause  of  his  absence — He  is  gone  to  a 
wedding  :  the  word  used  may  mean  almost  any  feast  or  entertain- 
ment.' The  servants  must  keep  on  the  alert,  ready  at  the  knock 
which  may  come  at  any  time,  to  meet  their  lord  at  the  outer  gate.  If 
the  parable  ended  here,  its  import  might  be  thus  restricted.  But 
„    37      Jesus  continued  it  as  foUows,  '  Blessed  are  those  servants  (Gr.  bond- 


I'Airr  II.]         -I    STUDY    OF    THE    FOUJl    (lOSl'KLS.  63 

servants),  wlioni  the  lord  ulieu  he  conieth  sluill  find.  Avatcliiiig- :  verily 
I  say  unto  yon,  that  he  shall  g-ird  himself,  and  make  them  sit  down 
to  meat,  aiul  shall  come  and  serve  tliem.'  Tliat  cannot  apply  to  any 
ordinary  occasion  :  obvionsly  the  marriaoe  is  that  of  the  lord  him- 
self, and  the  servants  are  waiting;'  and  watching-  for  tlie  arrival  of  the 
bridegroom,  with  the  bride  ar:d  others,  at  his  own  honse.  This  is 
made  clear  )>y  the  following  description  of  a  Jewish  marriage  exti'acted 
from  'Helps  to  the  Study  of  the  Bible/  'This  ceremony  was  per- 
Ibrmed  in  the"np})er  room"'  of  prisale  houses.  The  bethrothed 
pair  stood  under  a  canopy,  the  bride  being-  veiled,  both  wearing 
(•rowns,  which  were  several  times  exchanged  during  the  ceremony. 
The  officiating  minister  was  not  a  priest,  nor  necessarily  a  ral)l)i,  but 
an  elder,  who,  standing  behind  the  canopy  holding  a  cup  of  blessing, 
invoked  a  benediction  on  the  assembly.  He  then  ga\'e  a  cup  of  wine 
^o  the  l)etrothed,  who  pledged  one  another,  the  bridegroom  draining 
his  cup,  dashing  it  to  the  ground,  crushing  it  with  his  heel,  swearing 
fidelity  until  its  powdered  fragments  are  re-united.  The  marriage  con- 
tract was  next  read,  and  attested  by  each  person  present  drinking  a  cup 
of  wiue.  The  friends  next  walk  round  the  canopy,  chanting  psalms 
and  showering  rice  upon  the  couple.  The  ceremony  is  concluded  by 
the  elder  invoking  the  seven  blessings  upon  them,  drinking  the  bene- 
dictory cup,  and  passing  it  round  the  assembly.  It  was  for  this  cup 
that  our  Saviour  supplied  the  \vine  at  Cana.  After  dark,  the  bride- 
groom led  the  bride  to  her  house  attended  by  the  friends  of  each, 
while  others  joined  the  procession  on  its  way,  bearing  hymeneal 
lamps  in  token  of  respect.  Arrived  at  the  bridegroom's  house  all 
were  iuAited  to  a  feast,  which  by  the  rich  was  repeated  for  seven 
nights,  the  festivities  being  prolonged  to  a  late  hour.' 

The  Revisers  have  replaced  'wedding'  by  'marriage  feast.' 
Alford  retained  the  word  'wedding,'  but  spoke  of  it  as  a  ' feast  or 
entertainment.'  Young  and  Tischendorf  render  '  marriage.'  Sharpe 
'  wedding,'  liUther  '  Hochzeit,'  and  Beza's  Latin  version  has '  nuptiis.' 
The  word  ijamos  is  defined  as  'wedding,  marriage,'  but  'in  the  plural, 
a  marriage-feast ; '  the  plural  is  here  used,  and  is  rendered  in  the 
*  Englishman's  Greek  New  Testament.'  '  wedding  feasts.'  Still  it 
may  perhaps  be  open  to  (juestion  whether  the  plural  form,  like  our 
word  '  nuptials,'  does  not  signify  the  actual  marriage  ceremony.  The 
remark  of  Alford  seems  hardly  correct  :  '  The  main  ihomjld  here  only 
is  that  he  is  away  at  a  feast,  and  wiU  return.  But  in  the  background 
lies  the  wedding  in  all  its  truth.'  In  all  translations  except  the 
I  Revised  Version,  the  idea  of  the  wedding  is  itromincnt ;  what  is 
kept  in  the  background  is  the  feast  prepared  for  the  bride  and  bride- 
groom and  their  guests.  Jesus  does  not  alluded  to  that,  lint  to  a 
subsequent  feast  given  to  the  servants  of  the  house,  which  might 
naturally  be  the  case  on  one  of  the  six  festal  nights  succeeding  the 
marriage.  The  lord  on  that  occasion  would  manifest  his  apprecia- 
tion of  their  faithful,  efficient,  watchful  service,  by  superintending 
the  arrangements  for  their  comfort,  and  he  would  not  scruple  to 
l)reak  through  the  barriers  of  class  and  rank,  and  condescend  to 
minister  personally  to  their  wants.  '  Blessed  are  those  servants  (Gr.  ijLuke 
bondservants)  whom  the  lord  when  he  cometh  shall  find  watching  : 
\erily  I  say  unto  you,  that  he  shall  gird  himself,  and  make  them  sit 
down  to  meat,  and  shall  come  and  serve  them.'   Tischendorf  renders : 


G4  THE    KING    AND    THE    KINGDOM:  [part  ii. 

*  he  will  gird  himself  about,  and  make  them  sit  down  at  table,  and 
coming  near  will  minister  unto  them.'  We  see  now  the  sense  to  be 
attached  to  the  words,  '  Let  your  loins  be  girded  about  : '  assume  the 
garb,  the  office,  the  service  appointed  to  you  in  the  IMaster's  house- 
hold ;  let  everything  about  you  be  suited  to  the  task  you  are  called 
to  do  ;  learn  to  watch  patiently,  and  to  perform  your  life-work  with 
earnestness  and  alacrity.  The  lesson  Jesus  was  anxious  to  impress 
Avas  the  duty  and  necessity  of  vigilance.  '  And  if  he  shall  come  in 
the  second  watch,  and  if  in  the  third,  and  find  tlieni  so,  blessed  are 
those  servants.''  Tischendorf  reads,  '  blessed  are  they.'  following 
the  two  oldest  MSS.  Instead  of  making  that  alteration  the  Revisers 
have  indicated  it  by  italicising  the  word  '  servants.' 

By  another  simile  Jesus  urged  the  consideration  that  our  duty  and 
our  convenience  cannot  be  made  to  correspond.  It  was  obvious  that 
if  only  the  owner  of  a  house  could  foretell  the  time  when  a  burglary 
would  be  attempted,  he  would  prefer  to  keep  watch  for  that  occasion 
only.  As  it  is,  he  is  always  in  uncertainty,  and  must  be  constantly 
on  guard,  knowing  that  the  danger  is  imminent,  and  that  if  ever  ho 
leaves  the  house  he  does  so  at  the  peril  of  finding  on  his  return  that 
it  has  been  broken  into.  'But  know  this  (Or,  I3ut  this  ye  know), 
that  if  the  master  of  the  house  had  known  in  what  hour  the  thief 
was  coming,  he  would  have  watched,  and  not  have  left  his  house  to 
be  broken  through  (Gr.  digged  through).'  As  the  necessity  is  laid 
upon  the  householder  of  being  ever  on  the  spot  or  on  the  alert,  per- 
sonally or  by  deputy,  so  it  is  incumbent  upon  the  disciple  of  Jesus  to 
keep  at  his  post  of  duty,  for  he  is  exposed  to  similar  uncertainty,  and 
knows  not — or  rather  should  know — what  irrejiarable  injury  and  loss 
]nay  ensue  from  any  relaxation  of  that  watchfulness,  caution,  self- 
restraint,  and  devotion  to  duty  which  are  essential  to  our  well-being, 
bodily  and  spiritual,  temporal  and  eternal.  '  Be  ye  also  ready  :  for 
in  an  hour  that  ye  think  not  the  Sou  of  man  cometh.'  It  cannot  be 
doubted  that  by  '  the  Son  of  Man '  Jesus  designated  himself,  as 
Messiah  and  Head  of  mankind  :  The  nature  and  object  of  his 
'  coming '  are  evident  from  the  context.  It  would  not  be  for  the 
purpose  of  executing  judgment,  either  among  those  of  his  own  house- 
hold or  upon  his  declared  enemies,  but  in  the  natural  course  of  events. 
He  represents  himself  as  participating  in  all  the  experiences  of 
humanity,  and  on  the  most  momentous  and  joyful  occasion  in  his 
career  he  must  needs  rely  upon  the  fidelity  and  devotion  of  those 
who  are  engaged  in  his  service.  If  they  should  fail  him,  he  will 
suffer  shame  and  disappointment ;  if  they  carry  out  his  wishes  and 
are  zealous  in  his  service,  he  will  make  them  sharers  of  his  joy,  will 
delight  to  show  them  honour,  and  even  reciprocate  their  good  offices. 
The" '  coming  '  for  which  he  would  have  us  prepare  ourselves  is  not 
that  of  a  Deity,  with  vengeance  in  one  hand  and  reward  in  the  other, 
but  the  '  coming  of  the  Son  of  man,'  in  the  same  nature  as  our  own, 
with  no  greater  difference  between  ourselves  and  him  than  that 
which  exists  between  a  master  of  exalted  rank  and  the  servants  who 
live  in  his  house  and  wait  upon  his  bidding. 

One  of  the  apostles  was  in  doubt  whether  the  parable  was  to  be 
considered  applicable  to  them  only,  or  extended  to  others  also.  '  And 
Peter  said.  Lord  (Sir — Young),  speakest  thou  this  parable  unto  us, 
or  even  unto  all  ? '     The  question  was  natural  and  necessary,  for  the 


1-AKT  II.]         A    STUDY    OF    THE    FOUR    liOSPELH.  65 

servants  in  a  ruler's  houseliokl  are  few  indeed  compared  with  tliose 
))ers()ns  scattered  over  his  estates.  The  answer  of  Jesus  went  straight 
to  the  poiiit.  AVhoever  holds  any  jiositiun  of  responsihihty  or  trust, 
to  him  tlie  rule  laid  down  in  the  parable  as  a  matter  of  course 
applies.  'And  the  Lord  said,  Wlio  then  is  the  faithful  and  wise  ij  i,iik(i4:i 
steward  (or,  the  faithful  steward,  the  wise  man),  whom  his  lord  shall 
set  over  his  household  to  give  them  their  portion  of  food  in  due 
season  ?  "  The  word  sitomflrioii,  rendered  '  portion  of  food,'  is  de- 
tined  as  '  a  measured  allowance  of  corn,'  and  is  translated  in  the 
*  Eng-lishman's  (ireek  New  Tesstament '  'measure  of  corn.'  The 
o-eneral  k'sson  conveyed  by  the  parable  is  demonstrated  by  alterinj>- 
the  circumstances  connected  with  it.  Jesus  drops  the  simile  of 
domestics  waiting  for  their  lord's  return,  and  takes  the  case  of  a 
man  who  by  his  character  or  wisdom  has  earned  a  superior  position, 
throwing  upon  him  the  responsibility  of  seeing  that  all  committed  to 
his  oversight  are  duly  provided  and  cared  for.  Alford  somewhat 
narrows  the  interpretation  by  saying :  '  In  its  highest  sense  it  applies 
to  his  Apostles  and  ministers,  inasmuch  as  to  them  most  has  been 
given  as  the  steirards — but  its  application  is  gradationally  downwards 
through  all  those  who  know  their  Master's  will,  even  to  the  lowest, 
whose  measure  both  of  responsibility  and  reward  is  more  limited.' 
It  is  true  that  the  apostle  Paul  wrote  :  '  Let  a  man  so  account  of  us,  4  i.  cor.  i 
as  of  ministers  of  Christ,  and  stewards  of  the  mysteries  of  God  ; ' 
and  again  :  'The  bishop  (or,  overseer)  must  be  blameless  as  God's  i  Tit  7 
steward.'  But  the  apostle  Peter  applies  the  term  '  stewards '  to  the 
general  l)ody  of  Christians  :  '  According  as  each  hath  received  a  gift,  "•  '■  >'«t- 10 
ministering  it  among  yourselves,  as  good  stewards  of  the  manifold 
grace  of  God.'  It  cannot  be  argued,  therefore,  that  to  the  clergy 
'  most  has  been  given  as  the  stewards  : '  and  although  the  apostles, 
dealing  with  spiritual  gifts,  used  the  word '  steward  '  in  that  con- 
nection only,  Jesus  in  the  parable  itself  does  not.  On  the  contrary, 
he  takes  up  the  ordinary  office  of  a  steward  in  a  nobleman's  estab- 
lishment, and  there  is  no  hint  that  any  class  of  teachers  or  any  kind 
of  teaching  is  designedly  referred  to.  Moreover,  the  words  '  steward  ' 
and  '  ser\'ant '  are  used  apparently  as  synonymous  in  the  parable,  and 
in  the  oldest  M8.,  the  Sinaitic,  the  original  reading  was  '  servant,' 
not  'steward,'  the  word  having  been  altered  by  a  later  hand.  Adhering 
to  the  terms  of  the  parable,  we  are  bound  to  apply  it  to  the  affairs  of 
ordinary  life.  The  steward's  duties  are  not  to  be  taken  as  representing 
those  of  priests  and  pedagogues.  The  most  prominent  and  universal 
feature  in  human  history  is — Labour  ;  and  the  apportionment  of  a 
due  reward  to  Labour  is  one  of  the  most  serious,  and  hitherto,  alas  I 
most  difficult  i)roblems  of  society.  We  talk  glibly  about  the  struggle 
which  ever  exists  between  Capital  and  Labour.  It  is  time  we  asked 
ourselves,  in  the  name  of  morality  and  Christianity,  Whether  any 
such  strife  is  natural  and  necessary  ?  Whether,  at  least,  its  conditions 
ought  not  to  be  considerably  modified  ?  Every  capitalist  is  a  steward. 
Every  employer  is  a  steward.  The  superior  position  itself  is  evidence 
of  faithfulness  and  wisdom,  either  in  the  man  himself  or  his  ancestors. 
Having  regard  to  the  grand  truth  of  human  brotherhood,  it  must  be 
admitted  that  the  status  of  a  large  manufacturer,  for  instance,  is 
that  of  a  faithful  and  wise  steward,  who  has,  under  divine  Providence, 


66  THE   KING    AND    THE   KINGDOM:  [part  ii. 

been  set  over  a  houscliold,  to  give  them  their  portion  of  food  in  due 
season.  Such  responsibility  clearly  attaches  to  him.  How  is  it 
^•enerally  fulfilled  ?  The  answer  is  plamly  recorded  in  the  huii'o 
fortunes  of  the  few  and  the  degraded  condition  of  the  masses. 
Overlooking  the  teaching  of  Jesus,  we  have  taken  up  the  science  of 
l)olitical  economy  in  the  same  spirit  and  to  the  same  ends  as 
Macchiavelli  handled  the  science  of  political  government.  His  point 
of  view  was  the  interest  of  the  governors,  not  of  the  governed,  and 
the  Aery  idea  of  morality,  of  right  and  wrong  in  rnlership,  was  ex- 
cluded from  his  system.  In  dealing  with  human  beings,  any  system 
which  leaves  out  of  account  the  principles  of  justice,  of  compassion, 
of  brotherly  love,  becomes  thereby  earthly  and  devilish.  The  law  of 
supply  and  demand  regulates  the  tides  of  commerce,  and  human 
labour,  being  a  saleable  article,  must  fluctuate  in  value  with  other 
things.  Of  course,  of  course  !  that  is,  if  you  assume  that  a  brother 
or  a  sister  is  to  be  considered  simply  as  a  chattel,  bought  and  sold, 
used  and  worked,  with  as  little  regard  to  his  or  her  bodily,  mental, 
social  welfare,  as  a  plough  or  a  steam  engine.  It  rests  with  the  great 
employers  of  lal)our,  to  what  extent  they  will  avail  themselves  of  the 
power  they  possess  to  extort  the  largest  amount  of  work  for  the 
smallest  amount  of  pay.  It  would  be  difficult,  and  might  be  even 
dangerous,  for  an  individual  employer  or  firm  voluntarily  to  pay 
more  than  the  recognised  market  price  of  labour.  One  of  the 
penalties  attaching  to  a  long-continued  course  of  wrong-doing  is  the 
difficulty  and  risk  of  departing  from  it.  Tyranny  descends  from  one 
generation  to  another, — an  inherited  curse  which  it  is  hard  to  shake 
otf.  The  first  step  towards  amendment  is  to  recognise  and  confess 
the  evil ;  then  the  thought  and  energy  which  formerly  were  devoted 
to  its  maintenance  and  perpetuation  will  be  free  to  set  about  the 
task  of  its  eradication.  It  is  not  in  human  nature  for  one  class 
deliberately  and  systematically  to  resolve  upon  oppressing  and 
starving  the  class  below  them.  The  monstrous  wrong  has  grown  u]) 
gradually,  like  errors  in  politics,  in  finance,  in  theology,  one  side  of 
the  question  being  brought  into  undue  prominence,  and  the  other 
side  wholly  overlooked.  The  laws  of  political  economy,  when  applied 
to  human  beings,  must  be  blended  with  human  sympathy,  or  tliey 
will  produce  misery  instead  of  happiness,  injustic  and  slavery  instead 
of  right  and  freedom.  Where,  between  masters  and  servants,  there 
is  personal  or  direct  intercourse,  the  system  of  *  starvation  wages ' 
has  not  come  into  operation.  The  treatment  of  domestics  can 
scarcely  be  admitted  as  a  case  in  point,  they  being  unmarried  and 
having  no  families  to  maintain.  But  take  that  branch  of  labour 
which  is  not  manual  but  clerical :  the  stern  law  of  supply  and 
demand  does  not  reduce  salaries  to  the  lowest  crushing  point.  A 
merchant's  or  manufactui-er's  clerk  grows  up  from  youth  to  man-_ 
hood,  and  often  continues  to  his  life's  end,  in  the  same  service.  As 
his  necessities  increase,  when  he  marries,  when  his  children  need 
education,  he  states  his  case,  and  his  employer  manifests  considera- 
tion and  sympathy.  The  Christian  law  of  brotherhood  demands 
that  the  same  consideration  and  sympathy  should  be  extended  to  the 
very  lowest  manual  labourer.  This  momentous  question  has  been 
fully,  eloquently,  impartially  faced  and  argued  by  Joseph  Cook  of 


PART  II.]         A    STUDY    OF    THE    FOUR    (WSPEL,S.  «i7 

Boston.  The  ten  lectnrcs*  delivered  hj  Iiini  on  the  subject  (]escr\c 
the  careful,  earnest  study  of  every  Christian,  and  especially  of 
('hristian  employers.  Here  are  a  few  ((notations  from  that  work  : — 
"  I  went  through  ^Manchester,  in  Eugland,  carefully  studyiug  the 
poor.  Sometimes  I  walked  by  o])en  doors,  where  the  lilth  inside  the 
threshold  was  as  deep  as  outside.  J  saw  poultry  picking  up  their 
living  not  oftener  outside  than  inside  these  doors.  One  evening,  on 
the  top  of  an  omnibus,  I  went  out  into  the  suburbs  of  Manchester, 
and  came  upon  palaces,  immense  jn-ivate  establishments,  with  grounds 
kept  in  the  best  English  styles.  Whose  houses  are  these  ?  They  are 
the  masters'  houses ;  manufacturers'  houses.  This  is  the  country 
seat  of  Sir  So-and-so,  who  owns  such-and-such  acres  of  factories  in 
Manchester,  under  the  soot  yonder.  Where  do  his  workmen  live  ? 
They  must  live  close  to  their  work,  under  the  eaves  of  the  factories  ; 
and  I  found  I  had  been  studying  the  houses  of  the  operatives  em- 
ployed by  these  very  princes  and  masters.  Skilled  operatives'  houses 
in  Manchester  are  often  very  comfortable,  but  I  am  speaking  of  the 
condition  of  the  lowest  paid  labourers.  There  was  before  me  in 
Manchester  what  does  not  yet  exist  in  Xew  England, — an  hereditary 
class  of  operatives.  Little  by  little  men  had  gone  down  to  the 
squalid  condition  in  hovels  where  I  saw  children  fight  over  a  piece  of 
fish  dropped  from  a  pedlar's  cart.  I  have  stood  there  myself,  and 
peeled  an  orange,  and  the  peel  was  picked  up  swiftly  from  the  side- 
walk, and  eaten  by  hungry  children.  I  could  fire  an  arrow  in  the 
-street  over  sixty  or  eighty  children  that  looked  as  if  they  had  been 
unwaslied  from  birth.  Within  a  cannon-shot  stood  these  palaces  of 
the  manufacturers.  That  contrast  is  seen  all  through  the  Old  World : 
and  it  results  from  these  great  principles,  that  subdivision  of  labour 
increases  the  skill  of  the  operative,  and  that  the  larger  the  establish- 
ment the  greater  the  profits.  The  man  who  manages  the  great 
establishment  may  become  rich,  and  can  take  care  of  himself ;  the 
man  who  makes  the  pin-head  loses  capacity  to  do  anything  else.  ]f 
he  loses  the  opportunity  to  make  that  pin-head,  he  knows  no  other 
trade,  and  may  suffer  terribly  before  he  can  learn  one,  and  find 
another  place  to  work.  What  else  did  I  see  in  Manchester  ?  Xear 
one  of  the  great  factories  was  a  long  brick  building ;  and  I  saw 
women  pass  it,  and  hand  their  infants  in  at  the  gate.  When  six 
o'clock  came  in  the  afternoon,  I  saw  these  same  women  coming  back, 
and  receiving  out  of  that  gate  their  babes.  What  sort  of  house- 
keeping is  that  ?  .  .  .  Even  John  Stuart  Mill,  using  England  as  a. 
lens,  and  putting  behind  that  telescope  the  best  eyes  of  political 
economy,  writes  a  deliberate  chapter  (Political  Economy,  Book  V., 
chapter  Vll.)  on  the  Probable  Future  of  the  Labouring  Classes,  and 
goes  so  far  as  to  say  that  he  finds  the  prospects  hopeful,  only  because 
he  expects  the  entire  system  of  wages  to  be  superseded  by  that  of 
co-operation.  But  the  system  of  wages  is  woven  with  the  whole 
structure  of  modern  life,  and  does  not  show  a  tendency  to  vanish  out 
of  history  like  a  morning  cloud.  The  accumulation  of  wealth  falls 
chiefly  to  employers,  and  not  to  operatives.  The  distance  between 
the  two  classes  is  a  result  of  deep  causes  arising  from  the  two  great 
laws  of  the  manufacturing  system.     It  is  out  of  these  laws  that  thei'c 

*  ''Labour."     B3- Joseph  Cook.     H odder  and  Stoiighton.     Price  Is.  6t?. 

F  2 


08  -  .TEE    KING    AND    THE   KINGDOM:  [pakt  ii. 

inevitably  originates  wliat  has  been  called  in  modern  times  a  manu- 
facturing aristocracy.  De  Tocqueville,  using  this  phrase,  compares 
the  territorial  aristocracy  of  former  ages  with  the  manufacturing- 
aristocracy  of  to-day,  and  finds  the  former  superior  to  the  latter, 
because  it  was  bound  by  law,  or  thought  itself  bound  by  usage,  as 
the  latter  is  not,  to  come  to  the  relief  of  its  serving-men,  and  to 
succour  them  in  their  distresses  (Democracy  in  America,  vol.  II., 
Book  II.,  chap.  XX. ;  also  vol.  II.,  Book  IV.,  chap.  V.)  .  .  .  Advo- 
cating no  socialistic  proposition,  and  defending  no  communistic 
dream,  I  yet  believe  the  day  will  come  when  the  cost  of  its  pro- 
duction will  determine  the  pay  of  labour.  The  cost  of  production 
includes  the  support  of  a  family.  .  .  .  There  must  be  somewhere  a 
lifting  of  the  income  of  the  lowest-paid  class  of  labourers  :  otherwise 
we  shall  have  monstrosity  after  monstrosity.  .  .  .  De  Tocqueville 
ventures  to  affirm  that  the  modern  manufacturing  aristocracy,  which 
to  a  large  extent  has  taken  the  place  of  the  hereditary  and  territorial, 
differs  from  the  old  feudal  aristocracy  in  that  it  feels  no  responsibility 
for  the  age  of  its  dependants.  Give  us  the  best  service  of  youth  : 
crush  out  the  right  of  children  to  a  fair  education  in  primary 
branches ;  give  us  the  strength  of  the  girl  before  her  powers  have 
been  fully  confirmed  ;  give  us  the  strength  of  mothers  when  their 
lives  draw  near  to  dangerous  physical  crises  ;  give  us  the  strength  of 
manhood  up  to  the  last  hour  in  which  it  can  labour  remuneratively  : 
and  then  let  the  ruined  girl,  let  the  mother  in  her  weakness,  let  old 
age  in  its  dependence,  shift  for  themselves.  ...  I  arrive  at  the  con- 
clusion that  justice  is  not  dangerous  to  capital.  ...  1.  The  cost  of 
producing  labour  should  determine  the  price  of  labour.  2.  The  cost 
of  producing  labour  includes  that  of  rearing  a  lamily.  3.  The  cost 
of  rearing  a  family  depends  on  the  standard  of  comfort  and  decency, 
below  which  labourers  will  not  go,  or  ought  not  to  go.  .  .  .  Only 
the  golden  rule  can  bring  the  golden  age.  ...  On  my  study  table 
there  is  a  collection  of  treasure  or  rubbish — I  hardly  know  which  to 
call  it — on  political  economy  :  ten  or  twehe  feet  of  volumes  repre- 
senting the  best  discussions  in  social  science  for  the  last  two  hundred 
years.  Gather  and  examine  in  chronological  order  any  such  collec- 
tion of  books,  and  you  will  find  that  down  to  about  1840  or  1850, 
they  are  full  of  the  see-saw  theory  of  wages  and  profits,  and  teach  a 
godless  science  ;  a  series  of  propositions  utterly  without  piety,  and 
having  in  mind  no  Christian  principles.  About  1810  and  1850,. 
after  the  reform-laws  in  Great  Britain  had  come  into  force,  you  find 
this  series  of  books  changiug  position  ;  and  God  be  praised  that 
to-day  political  economy  does  not  deserve  to  be  called  the  dismal 
science.  ...  0.  The  rate  of  profit,  therefore,  depends  on  a  variety 
of  circumstances,  of  which  the  rate  of  wages  is  only  one.  7. 
Ricardo's  doctrine  that  the  rate  of  profit  depends  on  wages  only,  is  . 
therefore  an  inaccurate,  because  an  inexhaustive,  statement  of  the 
case.  8.  When  the  efficiency  of  labour  is  increased  by  the  improve- 
ment of  machinery,  or  any  other  cause,  profits  may  be  increased, 
although  wages  may  remain  the  same.  9.  It  may  happen  from  the 
same  causes  that  both  the  rate  of  wages  and  the  rate  of  profit  may 
be  increased  at  the  same  time.  There  is  no  see-saw  in  the  relation 
between  labour  and  capital,  if  these  propositions  are  true.  .  .  .  There 
has  rarely  been  taught  authoritatively  a  more  mischievous  falsehood 


I'.^RT  II.]         A    STUDY    OF    THE   FOUR    GOSPELS.  m 

in  political  economy  tlian  the  assertion  that  wages  and  capital  are  of 
necessity  an  eternal  see-saw,  ])attin,<>;  tlie  labourer  and  tlie  em])loycr 

into  a  state  of  constant  wai- lustiee  is  no  jjcril  to  capitalists, 

nor  fair  wages  a  diminution  of  fair  profits.' 

These  extracts  suffice  to  show  the  vastness  and  urgency  of  the 
subject.  AVe  ha\e  only  to  open  our  eyes  and  see  for  ourselves  the 
degraded  condition  of  the  masses  in  our  cities.  Observe  the  crowd 
«if  the  lower  class  poor  in  the  eastern,  southern,  or  northern  streets 
of  London, — their  dress,  their  unhealthy  faces,  their  language,  theii- 
manners.  Then  think  what  must  be  their  surroundings,  where  and 
Jiow  they  live,  and  in  what  an  atmosphere.  Think  of  the  hard  straits 
tliey  must  be  put  to,  their  scanty  and  unwholesome  food,  their  lack 
of  all  those  decencies  and  conveniences  which  are  prime  necessaries 
of  existence  with  the  classes  above  them.  The  fact  is  undeniable 
and  notorious,  that  many  kinds  of  labour  are  terribly  underpaid. 
^Vhy  should  that  be  ?  How  did  such  an  unchristian  system  origi- 
nate ?  Hew  can  it  be  first  mitigated  and  eventually  abolished  ? 
That  is  the  grave  problem  which  presses  for  solution.  Let  us  no 
longer  be  deluded  by  a  lying  spirit  in  the  garb  of  political  economy. 
Let  the  fact  be  recognised  and  faced,  that  a  fair  amount  of  wage  is 
part  of  the  prime  cost  of  an  article,  as  mucli  as  if  it  were  a  part  of 
die  raw  material.  There  is,  after  all,  a  certain  starvation  point  below 
which  the  rate  of  wages  cannot  be  pressed.  Let  that  point  be  raised 
some  few  degrees.  Let  the  human  workman  receive  the  same  con- 
.sideration  as  the  machinery,  which  ic  is  found  necessary  to  keep  in 
proper  working  order,  whatever  be  the  expenditure  required  to  do  su. 
I'robably  the  additional  cost  will  fall  upon  consumers,  not  upon  the 
-manufacturer.  Be  that  as  it  may,  let  the  responsibility  of  paying 
■adequate  wages  rest  henceforth  on  the  right  shoulders, — those  of  the 
master  who  employs  the  workman.  If  they  are  Christians,  they  must 
both  act  upon  the  principle  laid  down  by  Christ.  The  labourer  must 
give  honest,  hearty  work,  and  the  master  must  oflFer  sufficient  pay, — 
sufficient  to  provide  for  the  workman  and  his  family,  so  that  his 
children  may  not  be  defrauded  of  their  right  to  education.  Educa- 
tion by  the  State,  either  wholly  or  partly  free,  with  compulsory 
attendance,  is  one  mode  of  grappling  with  the  evil  which  has  grown 
up  in  our  midst ;  and  the  introduction  of  this  system  will  render 
■easier  the  next  step  in  advance.  The  spirit  of  liberality  is  not 
■<|uenched  among  our  wealthy  manufacturers,  as  is  evident  from  the 
princely  sums  given  for  people's  parks,  for  schools,  and  in  other  ways. 
These  things,  howexer,  are  but  ])alliatives,  and  the  real  reform  must 
begin  at  the  other  end, — by  putting  the  workmen  into  a  pijsition  to 
hIo  what  is  needful  for  themselves.  In  some  eifectual  way  that  must 
be  brought  about, — probably  by  the  combination  of  different  methods, 
including  among  them  the  principle  of  co-operation.  The  '  kingdom 
of  heaven'  proclaimed  by  Jesus  is  based  upon  loftier  maxims  and 
principles  of  action  than  those  current  in  the  world.  The  obligations 
of  the  gospel  are  laid  upon  all  men,  and  extend  to  every  s])here  of 
human  duty.  It  is  an  idle  pretext,  an  act  of  hypocrisy,  to  call  Jesus 
*  Lord,  Lord,'  and  fail  to  do  the  things  he  says.  The  whole  life  should 
be  permeated,  its  every  nook  and  cranny  illuminated,  swept,  garnished 
by  his  Spirit.  That  is  what  he  demands  in  this  parable,  which  applies 
to  all  holding  responsible  ]iositions.     Jesus  will  judge  every  one  by 


70  THE   KING    AND    THE   KINGDOM:  [part  ii. 

the  way  in  which  he  performs  his  proper  life-work.  '  Who  then  is 
the  faithful  and  wise  steward,  whom  his  lord  shall  set  over  his  house- 
hold, to  give  them  their  portion  of  food  in  due  season  ?  '  Is  not  that 
precisely  the  appointed  task  of  every  parent  and  of  every  master  r 
And  with  respect  to  our  fulfilment  of  that  task,  the  Son  of  man  will 
judge  us  at  the  last.  The  patient,  loving,  anxious,  long-suffering- 
Mother,  will  rejoice  in  his  approval  when  the  burden  of  her  life  is 
laid  aside.  The  Father,  be  his  condition  high  or  low,  who  has 
laboui-ed  and  battled  in  the  world  for  his  children's  sake,  will  be 
welcomed  as  a  good  soldier  of  Jesus  Clirist.  The  Master  who  has 
caied  for  his  servants,  who  has  not  defrauded  or  oppressed  them,  who 
has  l)een  as  careful  'to  give  them  their  portion  of  food  indue  season' 
as  tci  secure  his  own  gain  and  increase  his  own  wealth, — his  character 
and  course  of  action  will   be   stamped   with  our  Lord's  approval. 

■'■  '  Blessed  is  that  servant  (Gr,  bondservant),  whom  his  Lord  Avhen  he 
cometli  shall  find  so  doing.  Of  a  truth  I  say  unto  you,  that  he  will 
set  him  over  all  that  he  hath.'  The  spirit  of  Christian  brotherhood 
is  that  which  will  commend  us  to  Christ  and  advance  our  interests  in 
his  coming  kingdom,  when  the  world's  maxims  and  the  mistakes  of 
the  science  falsely  so-called  of  political  economy  will  be  replaced  by  a 
judgment  which  is  unerring  and  compassionate. 

This  is  no  new  gospel,  however  much  we  may  have  overlooked  and 
jjerveited  the  truths  which  Jesus  preached.  The  apostles  are  at  one 
with  him  in  pressing  home  this  duty.  '  Masters,  render  unto  your 
servants  that  which  is  just  and  equal ;  knowing  that  ye  also  have  a 
Master  in  heaven.'  Against  the  oppression  of  the  poor  by  the  rich 
in  the  matter  of  wages,  James  entered  this  emphatic  protest :  '  Be- 
hold, the  hire  of  your  labourers,  who  mowed  your  fields,  which  is  of 
you  kept  back  by  fraud,  crieth  out :  and  the  cries  of  them  that 
reaped  have  entered  into  the  ears  of  the  Lord  of  Habaoth.'  The 
warning  which  Jesus  uttered  against  this  form  of  covetousness,  this 
breach  of  trust,  this  neglect  and  perversion  of  duty,  is  very  solemn.. 

'y^-. '  But  if  that  servant  (Gr.  bondservant)  shall  say  in  his  heart,  My 
lord  delayeth  his  coming  ;  and  shall  begin  to  beat  the  menservants 
and  the  maidservants,  and  to  eat  and  drink,  and  to  be  drunken  ;  tlie 
lord  of  that  servant  (Or.  bondservant)  shall  come  in  a  day  when  he 
expecteth  not,  and  in  an  hour  when  he  knoweth  not,  and  shalt  cut 
him  asunder  (or,  severely  scourge  him),  and  appoint  his  portion  with 
the  unfaithful.'  Looking  round  upon  our  country  and  our  time  in 
sober  sadness,  would  it  be  easy,  Avould  it  even  be  possible  to  assert 
that  the  worship  of  wealth  does  not  pre\'ail  over  the  worship  of 
Christ?  Things  must  have  come  to  a  terrible  pass  to  have  evoked 
and  justified  Mrs.  Browning's  '  Cry  of  the  Children '  and  Thomas. 
Hood's  'Song  of  the  Shirt.'  The  employers  of  labour  must  be- 
regarded  as  primarily  and  directly  responsible  for  evils  such  as  those.. 
■>\hich  when  dragged  to  light  shock  the  moral  sense  of  the  community.. 
The  greed  of  riches  has  been  so  keen,  the  race  for  wealth  so  eager^ 
that  the  claims  of  humanity,  the  dictates  of  conscience,  and  the 
teaching  of  Jesus  have  been  alike  forgotten.  How  strangely,  how 
startlingly,  do  his  words  apply  :  '  If  that  servant  shall  say  in  his 
heart,  My  Lord  delayeth  his  coming  ! '  The  '  day  of  judgment'  has 
been  regarded  as  a  remote  event,  destined  to  happen  at  some  period 
in  the  dim  and  distant  future  :  meantime,  there  was  held  to  be  no- 


I'AiiT  II.]         A    STTWY    OF    THE    FOUR    i^OSPELS!.  71 

divine  oversiglifc  with  vespw-t  to  tlic  course  of  thi-^  world's  trading-  ; 
prices  must  Vise  or  fall  aecordiii<>-  to  the  stress  of  competition,  and 
the  wages  of  men,  women  and  children  must  follow  the  same  cast- 
iron  law  of  political  economy,  the  necessity  for  keeping  them  at  the 
very  lowest  point  being  self-evident,  on  account  of  tlie  largeness  of 
the' item  and  the  fact  that  other  charges  were  necessarily  fixed,  such 
as  rent  of  premises  and  the  cost,  repair  and  maintemmce  of  machinery  : 
the  reduction  of  workmen's  wages  was  the  readiest  and  most  effectual 
economy  practicable.     If  the  master  sufl'ered  with  them,  if  he  had 
been  losing,  were  it  only  interest  on  his  capital,  at  the  same  time,  if 
the  i-eduction  had  been  temporary  and  exceptional,  it  inight  ha\e 
been   excusable.      But   there   has   lieen    growing    opulence   among 
employers,  whilst  want,  misery  and  degradation  have  become  chronic 
among  the  working   class.     What  is  that  but  oppression,  coupled 
with  selfishness  and  self-indulgence  ?     'And  shall  begin  to  beat  the 
menservants  and  the  maidservants,  and  to  eat  and  drink,  and  to  be 
drunken.'      Seeing   exfcremest   luxury   on   one   side,   and   extremest 
poverty  on  the  otlier,  this  simile  can  scarcely  be  deemed  too  strong. 
There  has  been  a  hideous  misconception  of  Christian  duty  :  somno- 
lence if  not  searing  of  the  conscience.     Huge  fortunes  have  been 
amassed  under  this  system,   with  never  a   tliought  of  any  loss  of 
Christian  status.     The  so-called  '  evangelization  of  the  masses '  may 
even  have  been  a  pet  form  of  charity  with  some  of  these  wealtliy 
manufacturers.     They  have  been  looking  forward  to  a  heavenly  life 
hereafter,  have  believed  in  Jesus  as  their  Redeemer,  and  have  been 
anticipating  and  preparing  for  his  '  coming.'     But  not  in  the  way  he 
has  appointed  them.     'The  lord  of  that  servant  shall  come  in  a  day 
when   he   expecteth   not,   and   in  an   hour  when  he  knoweth  not.' 
Acceptance   with   Jesus   is  not  to  be  found  through   any   Church 
membership,  or  form  of  worship,  or  sacramental  pledge,  but  in  doing 
the  work  of  this  life  on  the  principles  and  in  the  spirit  he  has  incul- 
cated.    Were  Jesus  now  to  revisit  earth,  and  to  look  round  about 
upon    all    things,   as  when   he   esjued   the   abuses   in   the   temple, 
think  you  that  he  would  look  without  shame  and  indignation  on  the 
slums  in  which  the  lowest  class  of  labourers  live,  or  with  complacency 
upon  the  palaces  of  the  masters  who  have  risen  to  wealth,  refinement, 
rank,  notwithstanding  the  degradation  of  their  operatives  ?     Would 
he  not  quickly  execute  his  threat  :  '  and  shall  cut  him  asunder,  and 
appoint  his  portion  with  the  unfaithful  ? '     Such  neglect  and  oppres- 
sion of  one's  poorer  brethren  must  lead  to  exclusion  from  the  brother- 
hood  of   which   Jesus   is  the  head.     Such  a  steward  will  find  no 
permanent  place  in  his  Master's  household.     And  because  the  judg- 
ment is  not  executed  speedily,  because  the  evil  goes  on  from  generation 
to  generation,  oppressor  and  oppressed  alike  hardening  into  indiffer- 
ence, and  being  even  taught  to  look  upon  such  a  system  as  the  natural 
ordering  of  divine  Providence,  are  we  to  suppose  that  no  account  is 
taken  of  it,  and  that  this  parable  uttered  by  Jesus  will  be  the  only 
token  of  his  reprobation  ?     He  himself  has  intimated  by  another 
parable  how  sudden  and  complete  may  be  the  reversal  in  the  w^orld  to 
come  of  the  relative  positions  of  rich  and  poor  in  this.     He  assures 
us  that  deliberate  injustice,  the  sinning  in  this  fashion  against  light 
and  knowledge,  will  meet  with  a  heavy   punishment.     'And  that  li  Luke  4: 
ser\ant  (Gr,  bondservant),  which  knew  his  lord's  will,  and  made  not 


72  THE    Kim^    AND    THE    KINCWOM :  [part  ii. 

ready,  nov  did  according  to  his  will,  shall  be  beaten  with  many 
stripeti'  But  Jesus  assumes  that  the  failure  of  Christian  duty  in  this 
matter  may  not  be  deliberate  or  of  set  intention,  but  may  arise  from 
heedless  ignorance  ;  and  in  such  cases,  although  the  evil  is  none  the 
less  actual  and  deplorable,  and  cannot  be  perpetrated  with  impunity, 
yet  the  punishment  with  which  it  is  avenged  will  be  of  a  far  lighter 
character.  '  But  he  that  knew  not,  and  did  things  worthy  of  stripes, 
shall  be  beaten  with  few  stripes.''  Christian  morality  branches  out  in 
all  directiims  and  embraces  every  duty,  personal,  domestic  and  social. 
It  is  easy  to  understand  how  and  why  the  last  named  has  come  to  be 
least  regarded  and  most  neglected.  The  doctrine  of  repentance  was 
proclaimed  from  the  first.  The  necessity  of  personal  reformation  of 
character  was  strongly  urged  by  the  apostles,  and  ever  has  been  in 
the  Christian  church.  Family  relationships  have  always  stood,  both 
by  nature  and  grace,  well  within  the  sphere  of  Christian  influence. 
Parental  responsibility  has  been  accepted  as  self-evident,  scarcely 
needing  any  enforcement.  '  But  if  any  provideth  not  for  his  own, 
and  specially  his  own  household,  he  hatli  denied  the  faith,  and  is 
worse  than  an  unbeliever.'  But  as  the  circle  of  duty  widens  outwards, 
the  feeling  of  sympathy  and  obligation  naturally  becomes  less  intense : 
our  individual  wants  and  domestic  trials  must  needs  be  realised  more 
vividly  l)y  ourselves  than  those  of  others.  It  is  open  to  question, 
also,  whether  our  spiritual  guides  have  not,  in  preaching  the  gospel, 
somewhat  unwisely  overshot  the  mark.  They  have  been  so  earnest 
in  exhortations  to  generosity,  that  they  have  forgotten  to  inculcate 
simi)le  justice.  The  duty  of  almsgiving  has  seemed  a  nobler  grace 
than  the  mere  payment,  in  the  ordinary  way,  of  adequate  if  not 
liberal  wages.  And  there  have  been  so  many  objects  of  high  and 
spiritual  interest  to  be  pleaded  for  :  missions  to  the  heathen,  schools 
for  religious  education,  J^ible  societies,  tract  societies,  church  building, 
hospitals,  reformatories.  Subscriptions  to  such  objects  have  been 
supjjosed  to  constitute  the  first  and  foremost  duty  of  the  wealthy, 
whilst  the  injustice  which  has  oppressed  and  degraded  the  poor  has 
been  eating  like  a  canker  into  the  social  system,  and  left  to  extend 
and  perpetuate  itself,  as  though  it  were  some  heaven-sent  scourge, 
which  society  must  endure  as  it  may,  and  palliate  if  possible,  but  can 
never  hope  to  extirpate.  We  ha\e  been  taught,  moreover,  that  this 
world,  with  all  that  appertains  to  it,  is  of  far  less  consequence  than 
the  world  to  come,  where — by  some  process  of  divine  judgment  apart 
from  human  effort — it  is  assumed  that  the  wrongs  and  inequalities  of 
our  present  existence  will  right  themselves,  poor  and  rich  alike  being 
made  happy  or  miserable  for  ever,  according  to  their  reception  oi- 
I'ejection  of  the  gospel  message  now,  and  their  faith  or  unbelief  with 
respect  to  those  doctrines  and  mysteries  which  it  is  the  appointed 
work  of  Christ's  ministers  to  preach  and  elucidate.  What  wonder 
that  under  such  a  system  of  teaching  the  common,  fundamental, 
reciprocal  duties  of  man  to  man  have  been  lost  sight  of  and  ignored  ? 
lict  us  revert  to  the  pure  and  simple  gospel  of  Jesus,  and  ponder 
well  his  warnings  against  all  unjust  stewardship.  The  recognition  of 
Christianity  in  its  social  aspects  comes  late  and  last  in  the  world's 
gradual  development.  It  is  the  great  want  and  work  of  the  Church, 
and  until  that  want  is  felt  and  that  work  is  faced,  the  regeneration 
of  society  will  be  as  far  off  as  ever. 


I'AKT  II.]         A    STUDY    OF    THE    FOUR    GOSPELS.  73 

In  Mattliew's  ^'osjicl  this  parable  stands  in  another  connection,  as 
f  hoiigli  dehvered  after  the  jn'opheoy  of  tlie  destruction  of  Jernsaleni. 
Alford  assumes  that  it  was  spoken  twice.  He  says  :  '  How  much 
more  natural  tiiat  our  Lord  should  have  preserved  in  his  parabolic 
discourses  the  same  leadini;,-  ideas,  and  again  and  again  gathei'cd  his 
|)recepts  round  them,— than  that  the  Evangelists  should  have  thrown 
into  utter  and  inconsistent  cou fusion,  words  which  would  have  l)een 
treasured  up  so  carefully  by  those  that  heard  them  ;  to  say  nothing 
of  the  promised  help  of  the  Spirit  to  bring  to  mind  all  that  he  had 
said  to  them.'  To  this  it  must  he  replied  :  (1)  We  repeatedly  find 
in  the  gospel  narratives  similar  instances  of  confusion.  (2)  This 
would  naturally  arise  from  the  difficulty  of  constantly  noting  down 
long  discourses  at  the  time  they  were  spoken.  That  would  have 
l)een  an  impossible  task,  except  on  special  occasions,  or  on  the 
assumption  that  one  of  the  apostles  was  an  adept  in  reporting,  and 
was  always  present,  note  l)ook  in  hand.  {?))  The  assumed  need  of 
the  Spirit's  aid  to  bring  to  their  minds  the  things  previously  spoken, 
would  be  in  itself  an  e\'idence  that  no  regular,  methodical  record  had 
been  kept  of  them.  (4)  Alford  seems  to  have  overlooked  the  fact 
that  not  only  this  but  the  preceding  parable  must,  on  his  view,  have 
i)een  delivered  twice,  and  both  together  on  the  two  occasions,  which 
is  somewhat  improbable.  The  (question  when  they  were  spoken  is 
not  material.  As  they  fit  smoothly  and  accurately  in  Luke's  narra- 
tive, but  rather  incongruously  in  Matthew's,  it  seems  likely  that  a 
misjDlacement  at  the  time  of  compilation,  or  a  displacement  subse- 
<piently,  has  occurred  in  the  latter.  On  comparing  the  following 
with  Luke,  it  wall  be  seen  how  nearly  the  words  agree  in  both 
evangelists.  'But  know  this  (or.  But  this  ye  know),  that  if  the -'4M 
master  of  the  house  had  known  in  what  watch  the  thief  was  coming, 
he  would  have  watched,  and  W(juld  not  have  suffered  his  house  to  be 
lu'oken  through  ((ir.  digged  through).  Therefore  be  ye  also  ready  : 
Ibr  in  an  hour  that  ye  think  not  the  Son  of  man  cometh.  Who  then 
is  the  faithful  and  wise  servant  ((Jr.  bondservant),  whom  his  lord 
hath  set  over  his  household,  to  give  them  their  food  in  due  season  't 
Blessed  is  that  servant  (Gr.  bondservant)  w^hom  his  lord  when  he 
cometh  shall  find  so  doing.  Verily  I  say  unto  you,  that  he  will  set 
him  over  all  that  he  hath.  But  if  that  evil  servant  (Gr.  bondservant) 
shall  say  in  his  heart,  My  lord  tarrieth  ;  and  shall  begin  to  beat  his 
fellows-servants,  and  shall  eat  and  drink  with  the  drunken  ;  the  lord 
of  that  servant  (Gr.  bondservant)  shall  come  in  a  day  when  he 
cxpecteth  not,  and  in  an  hour  when  he  knoweth  not,  and  shall  cut 
him  asunder  (or,  severely  scourge  him),  and  appoint  his  portion  with 
the  hypocrites  :  there  shall  be  the  weeping  and  gnashing  of  teeth.' 

The  marginal  reading  '  se\-erely  scourge  him,'  introduced  by  the 
Ilcvisers,  does  not  appear  in  other  translations.  The  words  in  the 
text,  '  shall  cut  him  asunder,'  are  thus  explained  by  Alford  :  '  The 
reference  is  to  the  punishment  of  cmtting,  or  sawing  asunder  :  see 
Dan.  ii.  5  ;  iii.  20  :  Sus.  ver.  59  ;  see  also  Heb.  iv.  12  ;  xi.  37.' 
'I' hose  passages  contain  nothmg  to  confirm  the  interpretation  of 
Alford.  The  idea  of  attributing  such  a  simile  to  Jesus  is  repulsive. 
The  verb  in  the  original  is  dkhotomeo,  to  cut  in  two,  cut  asunder. 
There  is  an  analogous  verb,  dicJiostated,  to  stand  apart,  disagree.  If 
the  servant  is  represented  as 'cut  apart,' it  was  in  order  that  he 


74  THE    KING    AND    THE    KINGDOM:  [part  ii. 

might  'stand  apart.'  The  expression  seems  plainly  and  naturally  to 
signify  exclusion  from  the  Christian  fellowship:  the  'cutting  asunder' 
is  from  the  household  in  which  the  steward  held  a  responsihle  posi- 
tion. That  no  form  of  capital  punishment  is  implied,  is  obvious 
from  the  closing  sentence  in  Matthew,  which  represents  the  mental 
anguish  suffered  by  those  who  have  been  thus  '  cut  asunder.'  The 
word  '  hypocrites  '  is  used  by  Matthew  instead  of '  unfaithful : '  un- 
faithful servants  are  necessarily  hypocrites. 

In  Luke's  narrative  immediately  following  upon  this  parable  arc 
0  verses  which  have  no  traceable  connection  with  the  context.     They 
agree  with  verses  34  to  3(;  of  the   loth  chapter  of  Matthew,  which 
were  spoken  on  the  sending  foi'th  of  the  apostles,  and  these  five 
verses  in  Luke  have  been  already  considered  in  relation  to  that  event. 
The  next  G  verses  in  this  12th  chapter  of  Luke  are  recorded  as  having 
been  spoken  'to  the  midtitudes,'  but  without  any  indication  as  to  the 
time.     Four   of  them   correspond   nearly  with    10  Mat.    1 — 4  and 
8  Mark  ]()— 13,  which  have  been  already  dealt  with,  but  the  subject 
touched  on  may  well  bear  reconsideration.     Jesus  intimated  that  the 
failure  of  the  people  to  appreciate  his  mission  and  forecast  its  con- 
sequences, was  not  owing  to  any  defect  in  their  power  of  judgment. 
They  were  able  and  accustomed  to  ol)serN'e  for  themselves,  and  to 
vj  LuU(>  :.4,  arrive  at  correct  conclusions  on  other  matters.     '  And  he  said  to  the 
•'■-'  multitudes  also,  When  ye  sec  a  cloud  rising  in  the  west,  straightway 
ye  say,  There  cometh  a  shower  ;  and  so  it  cometh  to  pass.     And 
when  i/c  see  a  south  wind  blowing,  ye  say.  There  will  be  a  scorching- 
heat  (or,  hot  wind),  and  it  cometh  to  pass.'     The  Revisers,  following 
the  oldest  MS.,  have  altered  '  out  of  the  west '  to  'in  the  west.'     The 
allusion  here  is  not  simply  to  the  exercise  of  judgment,  but  rather  to 
the  insight  of  future  events  :  how  from  one  thing  another  thing 
might  with  certainty  be   anticipated.      They  did   not   want  to  be 
caught  in  a  shower,  or  expose  themselves  to  any  sudden  increase  of 
temperature,  so  they  watched  the  clouds  and  changing  wind,  and  pro- 
tected themselves  in  time.     Were  they  not  equally  able  to  prognosti- 
cate the  consequences  of  their  own  lives  and  actions  ?     Was  not  the 
blindness  wilful,  hypocritical,  when  they  shut  their  eyes  to  coming 
:„;      evils,  living  for  the  present  regardless  of  the  future  ?  '  Ye  hypocrites, 
ye  know  how  how  to  interpret  (Gr.  prove)  the  face  of  the  earth  and 
the  heaven  ;  but  how  is  it  that  ye  know  not  how   to  interpret  (Gr. 
prove)  this  time  ? '     They  were  al)le,  if  they  would,  to  deduce  the 
liiture  from  the  present.     Why  should  they  delay  amendment  until 

.,  57  the  time  of  final  and  irre\ocab]e  judgment  ?  '  And  why  even  of 
yourselves  judge  ye  not  wliat  is  right  ? '  For  they  were  like  litigants 
on  their  way  to  the  tribunal  of  justice,  and  the  present  moment  gave 
the  last  chance  of  voluntary  repentance.  Let  the  debtor,  the  wrong- 
doer, avail  himself  of  the  opportunity,  and  exert  his  utmost  to  escape 
the  stern  retribution  which  threatened  him  if  unyielding  and  unre- 

,.  5s  pent  ant.  '  For  as  thou  art  going  with  thine  adversary  before  the 
magistrate,  on  the  way  give  diligence  to  be  quit  of  him.'  The  omis- 
sion of  the  connecting  word  '  for  '  in  the  Authorised  Version  marred 
the  sense  and  force  of  the  passage.  This  is  not  an  alteration  in  the 
reading,  but  in  the  translation  :  Young  also  inserted  the  word  '  for.' 
If  the  offender  continued  ol)dur;ite,  so  much  the  worse  for  him  :  the 


I'ART  II.]         A    STUDY    OF    THE    FOUR    GOSPFLS.  75 

matter  would  be  can-ied  to  the  extremity,  the  adjudication  would  be 
made,  the  warrant  of  the  judge  would  issue,  and  the  prisoner  would 
l)e  handed  over  to  the  jailor.  '  Lest  he  hale  thee  to  the  judge,  and 
the  judge  shall  deliver  thee  up  to  the  exactor,  and  the  exactor  cast 
thee  into  i)rison.'  That  is  Tischendorf's  rendering.  Young's  is  as 
follows  :  '  That  he  may  not  drag  thee  before  the  judge,  and  the  judge 
may  deliver  thee  to  the  officer,  and  the  officer  may  cast  thee  into 
prison.'  The  Authorised  Version  begins  :  '  Lest  he  hale  thee  to  the 
judge.'  The  Kevisers  have  inserted  the  word  '  haply,' which  weakens 
the  passage,  making  the  punishment  a  mere  possible  contingency 
iustead  of  an  absolute  certainty  :  'lest  haply  he  hale  thee  unto  the  uli 
judge,  and  the  judge  shall  deliver  thee  to  the  officer  (Gr.  exactor), 
and  the  officer  (Gr.  exactor)  shall  cast  thee  into  prison.'  The  im- 
prisonment, however  long  continued,  would  not  be  held  equivalent 
to  the  cancelment  of  the  debt.  'I  say  unto  thee,  Thou  shalt  by  no 
means  come  out  thence,  till  thou  have  paid  the  \ery  last  mite.'  All 
unfulfilled  obligations  will  bring  their  loenalty,  and  there  can  be  no 
joy  or  freedom  for  any  one  who  has  failed  in  duty  and  scorned 
repentance,  until  through  much  suffering  and  effoi't  he  has  retrieved 
the  past.     That  seems  to  be  the  scope  of  this  paral)le. 

In  the  Authorised  Version  Luke's  narrati\e  continues  thus : 
'  There  were  present  at  that  season  some  that  told  him  of  the 
(ialileans.'  Alford  remarks  :  '  The  words  af  that  season  may  mean  at 
lliai  very  time,  viz.  as  He  finished  the  foregoing  discourse  :  but  it  is 
not  neccssanj  to  interpret  thus  ;  for,  Matt.  xii.  ]  ;  xiv.  1,  the  similar 
expression  is  certainly  indefinite.  The  opening  words  do  not  mean, 
as  A.  v.,  that  these  persons  were  in  the  crowd,  and  remarlced  to  the 
Lord  concerning  these  Galileans,  in  consequence  of  what  He  had  said 
ch.  xii.  57  :  such  a  finding  of  connection  is  too  fine-drawn.  It  is 
obvious  that  no  connection  is  intended  between  this  incident  and  the 
foregoing  discourse.'  Dr.  Young  renders  :  '  And  there  were  present 
•  ■ertain  at  that  time,  telling  him  about  the  Galileans.'  This  does  iiot 
favour  the  view  of  Alford,  neither  does  the  course  adopted  by  the 
Revisers.  In  the  two  other  passages  he  alludes  to  they  have  left  the 
expression  indefinite,  '  at  that  season,'  but  here  they  have  inserted  tlie 
word  '  very.'  '  Xow  there  were  some  jjresent  at  that  very  season  i3 1. 
which  told  him  of  the  Galileans.'  Tischendorf,  however,  docs  not 
indicate  that  the  persons  were  present  in  the  crowd,  but  the  contrary. 
'And  there  came  some  at  that  season  telling  him  of  the  Galileans.' 
Still,  the  insertion  by  the  Revisers  of  the  omitted  Avord  'for'  in 
verse  5<S  of  the  last  chapter  and  of  the  omitted  word  'now'  or  '  and' 
at  the  beginning  of  this  verse,  denotes  a  connection  which  was  not 
previously  manifest.  Jesus  had  been  dealing  ^vith  the  subject  of 
retributive  justice,  and  to  that  lie  now  again  refers.  The  Roman 
governor  had  made  a  stern  example  in  his  treatment  of  certain 
Galileans.  To  express  the  abhorrence  and  infamy  attaching  to  them, 
he  had  caused  their  blood  to  mingle  with  the  sacrifices  oifered  to  the 
avenging  deities  of  the  Roman  people.  That  would  seem  to  be  the 
meaning  of  the  statement :  '  whose  blood  Pilate  had  mingled  "r\-ith 
their  sacrifices.'  Alford,  Tischendorf,  Young,  and  the  '  Englishman's 
Greek  New  Testament'  omit  the  word  '  had '  bcfoi'c  'mingled.' 
Alford  says  :  'It  must  have  occurred  at  some  feast  in  Jerusalem,  on 


l;i  \A\\ir 


7<;  THE    Kiya    and    the    kingdom:  [part  II. 

wliicli  occasions  riots  often  took  place,  and  in  the  outer  court  of  the 
temple.  tSuch  slaughters  were  frequent.'  That  interpretation  of  the 
expression  seems  far  too  weak.  The  act  was  judicial,  striking, 
solemn,  or  it  would  not  have  been  attributed  to  Pilate  and  spoken  of 
as  exce])tional.  Men  were  naturally  impi-essed  by  tlie  heinousness  of 
the  guilt  which  had  been  visited  by  so  ignominious  a  death.  Not  so 
Jesus.  'And  he  answered  and  said  unto  them,  Think  ye  that  these 
(Galileans  were  sinners  above  all  the  (Jalileaus,  because  they  have 
suffered  these  things  ? '  It  is  obvious  from  the  words  '  suffered  these 
things,'  that  there  had  been  some  form  of  public  execution  marked 
by  unusual  severity.  Jesus,  however,  did  not  admit  that  the 
criminality  of  these  men  was  as  exceptional  as  their  punishment. 
That  may  well  have  been  doubtful,  to  say  the  least ;  for  the  enormity 
of  guilt  has  often  been  defined  by  political  rather  than  moral  con- 
siderations, and  the  men  called  '  traitors '  by  their  contemporaries 
and  'patriot  martyrs'  by  historians,  have  expiated  their  'treason'  by 
executions  attended  by  every  possible  mark  of  execration.  The  time 
was  not  far  off,^and  Jesus  kncAv  it, — when  he  himself  would  be 
delivered  up  to  this  same  Pilate,  and  scourged  and  crucified  as  a 
malefactor.  It  would  be  unsafe,  it  might  be  uncharitable,  to  judge 
the  characters  of  men  according  to  the  treatment  they  received  from 
the  rulers  of  this  world.  But  the  lesson  which  shoukl  come  home  to 
every  man  was  twofold  :  the  need  of  personal  reformation,  and  the 
certainty  of  final  retribution.  '  I  tell  you,  Xay  :  but  except  ye 
repent,  ye  shall  all  in  like  manner  perish." 

Then  Jesus  referred  to  another  event.  Eighteen  persons  had  lost 
their  lives,  not  by  way  of  law,  but  by  an  accident  altogether 
exceptional.  A  tower  had  f;xllen,  crushing  them  to  death.  Probably 
no  one  had  a])prehended  the  possibility  of  such  a  catastrophe.  Any 
fatal  occurrence  which  men  cannot  account  for,  they  always  have  been 
disposed  to  ascribe  to  '  the  visitation  of  (Jod,'  even  deeming  such  a 
conclusion  reverential.  The  phrase,  j^rojierly  understood,  means  only 
that  human  science,  skill  and  foresight  either  cannot  explain,  or  did 
not  suffice  to  avert  the  calamity.  But  in  some  minds  there  is  a 
tendency  to  carry  the  inference  a  step  further,  and  to  assume  that 
some  supernatural  power  has  been  exercised  in  the  event,  which  there- 
fore comes  to  be  regarded  in  the  light  of  a  visitation  of  divine  judg- 
ment. Against  such  an  idea  Jesus  protested.  '  Or  those  eighteen, 
upon  whom  the  tower  in  8iloam  fell,  and  killed  them,  think  ye  that 
they  were  offenders  ((Jr.  debtors)  above  all  the  men  that  dwell  in 
•lerusalem  ?  I  tell  you.  Nay.'  (^Comparative  degrees  of  guilt  in  men 
are  not  to  be  measured  by  the  mode  of  death  which  befalls  them. 
The  purest  patriot  may  suffer  like  the  vilest  criminal,  and  fatal  acci- 
dents may  overtake  alike  the  guilty  and  the  innocent.  The  emphatic, 
•  I  tell  you.  Nay,' of  Jesus  stands  out  against  all  rash  judgments. 
But  from  instances  of  sudden,  unexpected  death,  he  would  have  us 
draw  the  same  warning.  '  But,  except  ye  repent,  ye  shall  all  likewise 
perish.'  '  If  ye  may  not  reforu),'  is  Young's  rendering,  and  it  is 
preferable,  on  account  of  the  theological  ideas  and  definitions  which 
have  l)ecome  attached  to  the  word  '  repent.' 

The  expression  '  likewise  perish  '  demands  consideration.  In  the 
Authorised  Version  it  so  stands  in  both  verses,  but  the  I^evisers  have 
altered  it  in  verse  3  to  '  in  like  manner.'     Tischendorf  has  '  in  like 


PART  II.]        A    STUDY    OF    THE    FOUR    GOSPELS.  77 

maimer'  in  verse  o,  and  'in  the  same  nuinner'  in  \ei'so  .").  Sanuiel 
Sliarpe  has  'thus  perish'  in  verse o  and  'perish in  hke  manner'  in  verse T). 
Y'oanii;- has  'even  so 'in  verse  :>  and  'in  like  manner'  in  \erse  r>. 
Alford  sun'f^'ests  ' in  Hke  manner' for  both  verses.  He  sajs  :  'The 
force  of  this  is  lost  in  the  A.  V.  like/vise.  It  is  strictly //^  U/re  vuinner.'' 
That  heiuL;-  the  case,  what  is  the  significance  of  tlie  expression  ? 
Here  is  Alford's  comment  on  verse  :>  :  'as  indeed  the  Jewish  people 
did  perish  by  the  sword  of  the  Roniniis.*  And  this  is  his  comment 
on  verse  5  :  *  Here,  the  similarity  will  he  -in  the  ruin  of  your  whole 
city.  This  docs  not  render  it  necessary  that  these  words  should  have 
l)een  spoken  to  actual  dwellers  in  -lernsalem  :  for  nearly  the  whole 
nation  was  assembled  there  at  the  time  of  the  siege.'  To  give  this 
national  and  local  restriction  to  the  warning  of  Jesus  is  unsatisfactory  ; 
indeed,  any  such  applicntion  of  his  words  seems  far-fetched  and  un- 
reliable. It  transforms  the  teaching  into  a  prophecy,  and  assumes  that 
the  saying  could  lie  interpreted  only  by  the  light  of  a  future  event. 
On  the  contrary,  by  keei)ing  close  to  the  subject,  the  meaning 
naturally  attaching  to  the  statement  of  Jesus  becomes  obvious.  He 
spoke  first  of  a  judicial  execution  by  I'ilate.  That  was  no  indica- 
tion of  exceptional  guilt  ;  but  a  similar  judicial  execution  awaited  all 
who  remained  impenitent.  He  sjioke  next  of  an  unexpected,  over- 
whelming catastrophe.  That  also  gave  no  reason  for  assuming 
unusual  criminality  on  the  part  of  its  victims  ;  but  a  similar  sudden, 
irresistible  destruction  would  overtake  all  who  failed  to  reform  their 
lives.  The  imminence,  certainty  and  universality  of  Divine  judg- 
ment— that  is  the  lesson  here  taught  by  Jesus.  It  applies  not  to 
the  Jews  only,  but  to  men  of  all  nations  throughout  all  time. 

In  connection  with  this  subject  Jesus  delivered  a  parable.  He 
I'epresents  the  owner  of  a  vineyard  inspecting  a  fig  tree  planted 
therein.  For  three  years  together  he  has  found  it  unproductive,  and 
at  last  he  issues  orders  for  its  removal,  '  And  he  spake  this  parable  ;  13  Luke  0, 
A  certain  man  had  a  fig  tree  planted  in  his  vineyard  ;  and  he  came 
seeking  fruit  thereon,  and  found  none.  And  he  said  unto  the  vine- 
dresser. Kchold,  these  three  years  I  come  seeking  i'ruit  on  this  fig 
tree,  and  find  none  :  cut  it  dow'n  ;  why  doth  it  also  cumber  the 
ground  ? '  Tischendorf  renders,  '  cut  it  out  : '  the  object  was  not 
merely  to  get  rid  of  the  trunk  and  branches,  but  to  iree  the  soil  for 
.something  better.  But  the  vinedresser  even  yet  did  not  despair. 
He  thought  the  tree  was  worth  another  effort,  and  that  if  he  bestowed 
upon  it  extra  care,  and  manured  it  well,  it  might  still  become  pro- 
ductive. •  And  he  answering  saith  unto  him,  Lord  (Sir — ^Youug  and  „  s 
Alford),  let  it  alone  this  year  also,  till  I  shall  dig  about  it,  and  dung 
it.'  That  should  in  any  case  be  the  final  effort ;  the  year's  respite 
was  the  tree's  last  chance.  'And  if  it  bear  fruit  thenceforth, /re//;  „  ^ 
i)Ut  if  not,  thou  shalt  cut  it  doAvn.' 

We  are  left  to  draw  our  own  conclusions  from  the  parable,  and 
t  herefore  cannot  be  too  careful  to  keep  within  its  prescribed  limits. 
Its  most  i^rominent  lesson  seems  to  be  this  :  Perseverance  to  the  last 
in  hope  and  effort,  and  that  equally  in  the  task  of  self-reform  and  of 
altruistic  influence.  This  barren  fig  tree  represents  an  exceptional 
case  of  obduracy  and  moral  worthlessness.  No  other  tree  in  the 
\ineyard  failed  as  this  did.  Yet  he  who  was  best  able  to  judge,  who 
watched  it  constantly,  was  anxious,  in  spite  of  his  bitter  disappoint- 


78  THE    KlXa    AND    THE    KINGDOM:  [pakt  ii. 

racnt,  to  save  it  from  destruction.  He  resolved  to  make  one  per- 
sistent, final  effort,  admitting  at  the  same  time  that  if  that  failed  all 
hope  must  be  abandoned,  and  the  axe  must  be  left  to  do  its  work. 
Life  and  usefidness  must  go  togetlier.  The  fruit-producing  tree  is 
the  proper  symbol  for  humanity.  AVe  are  called  to  something  higher 
than  a  useless,  aimless,  selfish  existence.  Each  soul's  career  is 
watched  over,  its  worth  or  worthlessness  duly  appraised,  and  its 
ultimate  destiny  determined  accordingly.  In  various  ways  Jesus 
enforces  the  grand  truth  of  moral  responsibility.  The  neghgent 
steward  is  '  cut  asunder '  from  the  houseliold,  that  he  may  no  longer 
disorganize  and  disgrace  it.  The  barren  fig  tree  is  'cut  out,'  that  it 
may  no  longer  cumber  the  ground. 

Alford  observes :  '  This  Parable  has  perhaps  been  interpreted 
with  hardly  enough  reference  to  its  own  peculiar  context,  or  to  the 
symbolic  language  of  Scripture  in  other  places.  Ordinarily  the 
owner  of  the  vineyard  is  exjilained  to  be  the  Eternal  Faiher :  the 
dresser  and  intercessor,  the  )%/i  of  God:  the  fig  tree,  theirhole  Je/ris/i 
people:  the  vineyard,  the  irorkV  Against  that  interja-etation 
Alford  argues,  and  then  gives  his  own.  He  says  :  '  Noiv  who  is  t/ti.<i 
intercessor?''  and  he  arri^-es  !it  the  conclusion,  'Clearly,  it  seems  to 
me,  the  Hotij  Spirit  of  God.'  Then  he  assumes  that  the  '  three 
years  '  are  an  allusion  '  to  tlte  three  years  of  our  Lord's  ministry,''  and 
he  meets  certain  objections  brought  against  that  assumption.  On 
what  a  sea  of  uncer:ainty  and  error  do  they  set  forth,  who  go  beyond 
the  primary  and  essential  idea  embodied  in  the  parable  !  The  lesson 
wiiich  the  first  hearers  would  naturally  draw  from  iu,  is  the  lesson  for 
us.  All  beyond  that  is  a  surplusage  of  guesswork,  based  upon  con- 
ceptions which  grew  uj)  subsequently  in  the  minds  of  theologians. 
In  proportion  as  the  parables  are  construed  mystically,  after  a  recog- 
nized '  orthodox  '  fashion,  they  lose  force  and  freshness,  and  instead 
of  serving  to  illustrate  the  grand  central  truths  on  which  Jesus  would 
have  us  fix  our  thoughts,  they  become  perplexing  and  unprofitable. 

The  following  incident,  recorded  only  by  Luke,  is  described  with 
much  vividness,  and  was  evidently  derived  from  an  eye-witness. 
It  happened  in  a  synagogue,  on  the  sabbath,  desus  was  teaching, 
and  among  the  listeners  was  a  def  jrmed  woman.  For  eighteen  years 
she  was  known  to  have  suffered  from  a  spinal  weakness,  being  bowed 

i"i  down  and  unable  to  stand  erect.  '  And  he  was  teaching  in  one  of  the 
synagogues  on  the  sa])ljath  day.  And  behold,  a  woman  which  had  a 
spirit  of  infirmity  eighteen  years  ;  and  she  was  bowed  together,  and 
could  in  no  wise  lift  herself  up,'  The  expression,  '  had  a  spirit  of 
infirmity,'  may  l)c  taken  as  the  idea  entertained  by  the  narrator  and 
others.  Alford  says  :  '  The  A.  V.  has  here  mistaken  the  position  of 
the  word  which  it  renders  in  no  ivise.  It  means  altoyether,  and 
belongs  to  the  verb  ////  lierself  He  renders  it,  '  could  not  lift 
herself  upright.'  Tischendoi'f,  '  wholly  unable  to  lift  herself  up.' 
Young,  '  not  able  to  bend  back  at  ah.'  The  '  Enghshman's  Greek 
New  Testament '  rei^laces  '  in  no  wise '  by  "  wholly.'  Her  pitiable 
condition  attracted  the  notice  of  Jesus,  who  called  her  to  him.    How 

:  must  she  have  been  astounded  at  his  words  !  '  And  when  Jesus  saw 
her,  he  called  her,  and  said  to  her,  Woman,  thou  art  loosed  from 
thine  infirmity.'     Then  on  her  crippled  form  she  felt  the  touch  of 


PART  II.]         A    STUDY    OF    THE    FOUR    GOSPFLS.  79 

tliosc  liiuids  wliicli  never  touched  in  \-ain.  From  liis  body  to  liers 
there  ])asse(l  a  niysterioiis,  iiiviL;()i<itiiig  power;  as  by  some  subtle 
magic  her  muscles  shook  off  their  hitherto  unconquerable  torpor,  the 
vigour  of  her  best  days  was  instantaneously  restored,  and  she  was 
seen  standing  upright  aud  heard  uttering  her  thanksgiving  to  (xod. 
*  And  he  laid  his  hands  upon  her  :  and  immediately  she  was  made  is  r.i>i<c 
straight,  and  glorified  (lod.' 

The  man  whose  office  threw  upon  him  the  duty  of  maintaining 
order  in  the  synagogue  was  so  narrow-minded,  prejudi(.'ed,  bigoted, 
as  to  resent  this  marvellous  exhibition  of  the  healing  power  of  Jesus. 
Without  venturing  to  condemn  the  act  or  the  actor,  he  expi-essed  his 
displeasure,  vented  his  petty  criticism,  by  reminding  those  present  of 
tlie  sanctity  of  the  day.  His  indignation  was  excited  by  what 
appeared  to  him  a  desecration  (»f  the  sabbath,  and  he  showed  the 
courage  of  his  convictions  by  reproving  the  people.  He  rose  up  and 
delivered  his  little  sermon  on  the  text,  '  Remember  the  sabbath  day 
to  keep  it  holy.'  He  could  argue  the  question  verbally  and  techni- 
cally, but  how  far  off  was  he  from  the  spirit  of  divine  compassion 
which  had  made  the  sabbath  for  man  !  He  urged  the  congregation 
to  beware  of  encouraging  sabbath  work  in  any  ibrm  ;  if  people 
wanted  to  be  healed,  the  synagogue  should  be  kept  open  for  them 
throughout  the  week.  'And  the  I'uler  of  the  synagogue,  being  ..  i 
moved  with  indignation  because  Jesus  had  healed  on  the  sabbath, 
answered  and  said  to  the  multitude.  There  are  six  days  in  which  men 
ought  to  work  :  in  them  therefore  come  and  be  healed,  and  not  on  the 
(lay  of  the  sabbath.'  Jesus  answered  this  conscientious,  self-satisfied, 
zealous  critic  reproachfully,  almost  scornfully.  '  But  the  Lord  ..  i 
answered  him,  and  said,  Ye  hypociites.'  The  Revisers  have  altered 
the  word  from  the  singular  to  the  plural,  following  the  three  oldest 
]\ISS.  This  man  was  one  of  a  class,  a  fair  representative  of  his  sect, 
•lesus  had  affixed  to  the  scribes  and  Pharisees  generally  the  designa- 
tion 'hypocrites.'  It  is  obvious  that  the  term  was  not  deemed 
offensive,  in  the  sense  of  implying  open  discourtesy.  The  word 
hiipolf rites,  had  a  wider  application  than  our  translation  of  it,  the 
signification  '  hypocrite  '  being  subsidiary  :  '  one  who  answers  :  an 
interpreter  or  expounder.  One  who  plays  a  part  on  the  dcuje,  a  player, 
actor.  A  dissembler,  pretender,  hypocrite.'  The  indignation  mani- 
fested by  this  ruler  of  the  synagogue  was  not  feigned,  but  real,  and 
it  impelled  him  to  take  the  course  he  did.  The  lives  of  such 
dogmatists  were  full  of  incongruities  and  anomalies  ;  wedded  to  an 
erroneous  system  of  faith  and  morals,  their  most  solemn  convictions 
involved  a  kind  of  double-dealing  ;  seeking  to  hold  fast  by  the  letter 
of  the  divine  law,  they  oj^posed  its  spirit  ;  going  about  to  establish 
their  own  righteousness,  they  repudiated  and  opposed  anything  and 
o^■erything  which  overstepped  the  limits  of  their  authorised  maxims 
and  orthodox  conventionalities.  In  proportion  as  men  become  un- 
natural they  must  needs  develop  inconsistency,  and  nothing  tends  so 
much  in  that  direction  as  Avrong  notions  in  religion.  It  was  so  in 
the  days  of  Jesus  :  is  it  less  so  now  ?  He  detected  in  these  vene- 
rators of  the  divine  revelation,  these  devout  advocates  and  exemplars 
of  constant  prayer,  these  strict  Sabbatarians,  a  spirit  and  hal)it  of 
conduct  which  was  best  described  by  the  word  actors  or  hypocrites. 
In  the  New  Testament  the  term  is  never  used  except  by  Jesus,  and 


80  THE    KING    AND    THE   KINGDOM:  [part  ii. 

whenever  he  affixed  the  stigma  lie  was  careful  to  give  the  reason  for 
it.  Probably  unconscious  hypocrisy  is  more  common  than  that 
which  is  deliberate  and  intentional,  and  its  effects  may  be  quite  as 
harmful.  With  loving,  compassionate  boldness  Jesus  dragged  forth 
this  lurking  vice  into  open  daylight.  On  this  occasion  it  sufficed  to 
show  that  this  man  and  his  co-religionists  were  in  the  habit  of  doing 
on  the  sabbath  work  of  the  same  kind  as  that  which  had  just  been 
performed  by  Jesus.  '  Dotli  not  each  one  of  you  on  the  sabbath 
loose  his  ox  or  his  ass  from  the  stall  (Gr.  manger),  and  lead  him 
aAvay  to  watering  ? '  Even  their  rigid  creed  admitted  the  necessity 
for  that.  And  wherein  did  this  action  of  Jesus  differ  ?  In  two 
points  only.  The  laying  on  of  the  hands  by  Jesus  involved  far  less 
labour  than  a  journey  to  the  stable,  the  untying  and  retying  of  a 
halter,  the  leading  out  and  home  of  an  animal ;  and  the  need  of  this 
woman  for  the  relief  he  was  able  to  give, — how  vastly  was  that  in 
excess  of  the  few  hours'  thirst  of  a  duml)  creature  !  Here  was  a 
suffering  woman,  one  of  Abraham's  daughters,  who  by  some  malign 
])ower  had  been  physically  bound  in  ceaseless  discomfort  day  after 
day,  year  after  year,  during  eighteen  long  years.  Ought  she  not  to 
have  been  loosed  from  that  bond  on  the  sabbath  day  ?  *  And  ought 
not  this  woman,  being  a  daughter  of  Abraham,  whom  Satan  had 
l)ound,  lo,  thi'se  eighteen  years,  to  have  been  loosed  from  this  bond 
on  the  day  of  the  sabbath  ?  '  Who  could  dare  to  answer  No,  to 
such  a  question  ?  His  adversaries  were  dumbfounded  by  the  argu- 
ment. Not  one  word  could  they  suggest  in  self-justification, 
especially  as  the  crowd  were  enthusiastically  on  the  side  of  Jesus,  and 
were  manifesting  unbounded  joy  as  they  discussed  the  astounding 
and  beneficent  marvels  wrought  by  him.  '  And  as  he  said  these 
things,  all  his  adversaries  were  put  to  shame  :  and  all  the  multitude 
rejoiced  for  all  the  glorious  things  that  were  done  by  him.' 

Young  renders  'Satan'  by  'Adversary.'  The  words  of  Jesus, 
'  whom  the  Adversary  had  bound,'  carry  far  more  weight  than  those 
which  ex]>ressed  the  popular  notion  that  the  woman  '  had  a  spirit  of 
infirmity.'  Jesus  had  superliuman  knowledge,  and  he  certainly  attri- 
buted this  physical  deformity  to  the  spiritual  adversary  of  mankind.  In 
some  way,  direct  or  indirect,  it  was  his  doing.  If  we  believe  that  Jesus 
exercised  his  spiritual  powers  on  behalf  of  mankind,  it  is  equally  credible 
that  a  hostile  spiritual  being  may  exercise  his  powers  to  the  detriment 
of  mankind.  Why  or  how,  we  cannot  tell.  We  only  know  that  this 
mysterious  antagonism  of  good  and  evil,  of  malice  and  beneficence, 
runs  throughout  the  whole  Bible  history,  from  the  first  page  to  the 
last,  and  that  it  was  admitted  and  endorsed  by  Jesus  and  his  apostles. 

The  gift  of  prescience  possessed  by  Jesus  probably  intensified  his 
mental  sufferings.  Knowing  that  he  was  destined  to  end  his  life, 
under  circumstances  of  ignominy,  at  Jerusalem,  he  now  prepared  to 
undertake  what  he  knew  would  be  his  last  journey  thither.  'And  it 
came  to  pass,  when  the  days  were  well-nigh  come  (Gr.  were  being 
fulfilled)  that  he  should  be  received  up,  he  steadfastly  set  his  face  to 
go  to  Jerusalem.'  The  expression  'steadfastly  set  his  face,'  denotes 
the  moral  courage  required  and  exercised.  Not  only  did  he  resolve 
to  go,  but  lie  attracted  the  utmost  publicity,  undertaking  organised 
missionary  work  on  the  journey,  and  sending  messengers  to  announce 


PART  11.]         A    STUDY    OF    THE    FOUR    GOSPELS.  81 

his  comiiiu:  to  ])laces  ou  the  road:  'and  sent  messengers  before  his  o  Lu1:o  52 
face.'  That  would  be  an  absohite  necessity,  if  he  desired  to  find 
audiences  ready  to  Hsten  to  his  teacliing.  In  places  where  the  in- 
habitants were  scattered,  previous  notice  would  have  to  be  given,  the 
approach  of  Jesus  announced,  and  tlie  times  at  which  he  would  be 
prepared  to  addres.s  the  )u'o|)le  duly  arranged  beforeiiand.  The  mes- 
sengers set  about  the  performance  of  this  task  in  a  village  inhabited 
by  Samaritans.  'And  they  went,  and  entered  into  a  village  of  the  „  52 
Samaritans,  to  make  ready  for  him.'  It  was  a  recognised  fact  that 
the  Jews  had  *  no  dealings  with  Samaritans,'  but  the  disciples  of  4  John  0 
Jesus  were  above  any  pr^'judice  of  that  kind,  and  they  seem  to  have 
assumed  that  the  spirit  of  exclusiveness  was  on  the  side  of  their  own 
luition  only,  and  that  the  Samaritans  would  appreciate  as  a  privilege 
the  proposed  visit  to  them  of  the  great  Jewish  teacher.  Had  he  not 
on  a  former  occasion  been  acknowledged  as  Messiah  by  the  Samari- 
tans of  Sychar  ?  But  the  disciples  Avere  quickly  undeceived  :  they 
found  that  Samaritans  could  be  quite  as  haughty  and  bigoted  as 
Jews.  As  soon  as  it  was  ascertained  that  Jesus  was  travelling 
towards  Jerusalem,  a  peremptory  refusal  was  given  to  his  entering 
their  village.  'And  they  did  not  receive  him,  because  his  face  was  0  Luke 53 
(IS  t]iou(jh  lie  irere  going  to  Jerusalem.'  Two  of  the  disciples  were 
greatly  incensed  at  this  indignity  being  put  \\\wn  their  Master,  and 
they  were  anxious  to  see  his  prophetic  character  vindicated  by  a  sum- 
mary act  of  judicial  vengeance.  His  divine  authority  would  ha  best 
sliown  by  some  sign  from  heaven,  and  knowing  well  the  supernatural 
powers  which  could  be  wielded  by  Jesus,  they  waited  but  a  word  of 
permission  from  him  to  in\-oke  in  his  name  consuming  fire  from  the 
sky  on  the  heads  of  those  who  had  thus  scornfully  rejected  his  pre- 
sence and  teaching.  'And  when  his  disciples  James  and  John  saw  --  •''* 
this,  they  said,  Lord,  wilt  thou  that  we  bid  fire  to  come  down  from 
heaven,  and  consume  them  ? '  The  Revisers,  following  the  two  oldest 
MSS.,  have  omitted  '  even  as  Elias  did.'  The  suggestion  was  indica- 
live  of  their  reverence  and  faith,  and  might  well  occur  to  these  two 
v.-ho  had  lately  been  permitted  the  vision  of  their  Master  transfigured 
and  glorified  on  the  mountain-top.  But  such  a  purpose  was  far  from 
the  mind  of  Jesus,  and  the  idea  was  instantly  met  by  a  stern  rebuke. 
•  But  he  turned,  and  rebuked  them.'  The  Revisers,  following  the  „  &5 
three  oldest  MSS.,  have  omitted:  'and  said,  Ye  know  not  what 
manner  of  spirit  ye  are  of.  For  the  Son  of  man  is  not  come  to 
destroy  men's  lives,  but  to  save  them.'' 

Jesus  and  his  disciples  directed  their  steps  elsewhere.     'And  they      „    •''•e 
went  to  another  village.'     On  the  way  thither  the  following  incident 
();;curred.     A  man  expressed  a  wish  to  become  a  follower  of  Jesns,  no 
matter  whether  he  was  going  to  Jerusalem  or  elsewhere.     '  And  as      „    57 
they  went  in  the  way,  a  certain  man  said  unto  him,  I  will  follow  thee 
whithersoe\  er  thou  goest.'     He  may  have  been  a  Samaritan,  anxious 
to  prove  himself  superior  to  the  narrow  mindedness  which  had  been 
shown  by  his  countrymen.     The  words  '  whithersoever  thou  goest,' 
seemed  to  point  to  a  fixed  abode  somewhere,  but  Jesus  could  not  offer 
that  to  any  follower.   As  he  was  at  this  moment,  such  he  was  always  : 
a  homeless  wanderer.     '  And  Jesus  said  unto  him,  The  foxes  have      „    5s 
lioles,  and  the  birds  of  the  heaven  have  nests  (Gr.  lodging-places)  ; 
but  the  Son  of  man  hath  not  where  to  lay  his  head.' 


82  THE    KING    AND    THE    KINGDOM:  [part  ii. 

The  conclusions  thus  derived  from  Luke's  narrative  are  somewhat 
disturbed  on  comparing  it  with  Matthew.  He  inserts  this  incident 
at  a  much  earKer  period  of  the  history.  He  tells  us  that  the  man 
was  a  scribe,  but  the  conversation  is  almost  word  for  word  the  same. 
s  Mat.  10  20 '  And  there  came  a  scribe  (Gr.  one  scribe),  and  said  unto  him,  jMaster 
(or,  Teacher),  1  will  follow  thee  whithersoever  thou  goest.  And  Jesus 
saith  unto  him.  The  foxes  have  holes,  and  the  birds  of  the  licaven 
hare  nests  (Gr.  lodging-places) ;  but  the  Sou  of  J\fan  hath  not  where  to 
lay  his  head.'  The  position  this  occupies  in  ^latthew  leads  to  the 
inference  that  the  ofter  was  made  and  the  reply  of  Jesus  given  when 
he  was  on  the  point  of  entering  a  boat  to  cross  the  lake  of  Gcnne- 
saret ;  that,  however,  is  but  an  inference,  whereas  Luke  says  plainly 
that  the  incident  happened  '  as  they  went  in  the  way.'  With  respect 
to  Matthew's  narrative  generally,  the  Keverend  J.  J.  Halcombe  makes 
the  following  observations : '  We  perceive  at  once  that,  whilst  it  shews 
a  distinct  chronological  framework,  upon  which  the  whole  narrative  is 
built  up,  yet  that  the  idea  of  chronological  order,  so  far  from  being 
the  paramount  idea  or  controlling  principle  of  narration,  is  altogether 
subordinated  to  the  design  of  giving  special  prominence  to  the  Oral 
Teaching  of  our  Lord  ....  Thus  it  happens  that  throughout  the 
first  half  of  his  Gospel,  whilst  grouping  together,  and  so  to  speak 
classifying,  discourses  spoken  on  very  different  occasions,  8.  ]\Iatthew 
as  a  rule  introduces  Christ's  actions,  and  even  the  actions  of  his 
enemies,  not  with  reference  to  the  time  to  which  they  properly  be- 
longed, but  with  reference  to  their  suitability  to  illustrate  His  Oral 
Teaching,  and  so  to  complete  a  Portrait,  rather  than  a  Biography  of 
the  Divine  Teacher.'  *  On  the  other  hand,  as  it  was  the  express 
intention  of  Luke  to  compile  his  narrative  in  due  order,  we  must 
needs  suppose  that  he  endeavoured  to  do  so  in  this  instance,  and  that 
his  words,  'as  they  went  in  the  way,'  were  not  inserted  without 
warrant  as  a  mere  connecting  link.  But  with  respect  to  the  two  some- 
what similar  incidents  immediately  following,  Luke  does  not  give 
any  clue  as  to  time  or  sequence. 

•)  Luke  S9  Jesus  dcsircd  a  person  to  become  his  follower.  '  And  he  said  unto 
anothei",  Follow^  me.'  The  man  pleaded  for  a  slight  delay  on  account 
„  59  of  a  domestic  bereavement.  '  But  he  said,  Lord,  suffer  me  first  to  go 
and  bury  my  father.'  No :  the  command  was  imperious,  the  necessity 
for  immediate  action  urgent,  the  highest  duty  must  stand  first  and 
(io  foremost.  '  But  he  said  unto  him.  Leave  the  dead  to  bury  their  own 
dead ;  but  go  thou  and  publish  abroad  the  kingdom  of  God.'  Matthew 
omits  the  command  and  the  concluding  words  recorded  by  Luke,  but 
brings  out  the  fact  that  the  call  to '  follow '  Jesus  was  addressed  to  one 

.s  Mat  21, 22  of  liis  acknowledged  disciples.  '  And  another  of  the  disciples  said  unto 
him.  Lord,  sutt'er  me  first  to  go  and  bury  my  father.  But  Jesus  said 
unto  him.  Follow  me  ;  and  leave  the  dead  to  bury  their  own  dead.' 

Luke  records  another  saying  of  Jesus  uttered  under  similar  cir-" 
cumstances.     Another  volunteer  presented  himself,  who,  like  the  last, 

9  Luke  01  was  not  quite  ready.  '  And  another  also  said,  I  will  follow  thee. 
Lord  ;  but  first  suffer  me  to  bid  farewell  to  them  that  are  at  my 
house.'  The  cause  of  Jesus  would  brook  no  such  delay  :  hesitation, 
indecision,  half-heartedness  of  that  kind,  must  be  taken  to  indicate 

"Gospel  Difficnltirs,"  pp.  cxv.,  cxviu 


PART  II.]         A    STUDY    OF    THE    FOUR    GOSFELS.  83 

unfitness  for  the  task.  'But  Jesus  said  unto  liim,Xoman]iavinj^-put  his  'JUiko 
hand  to  the  plough,  and  looking  back,  is  fit  for  the  kingdom  of  God.' 
These  three  replies  are  strikingly  characteristic  of  the  mind  and 
policy  of  Jesus.  The  call  to  follow  him  involved  more  than  mere 
discipleship  :  it  necessitated  the  relinquishment  of  life's  comforts 
and  conveniences  ;  it  interfered  vrith  the  regard  due  to  social  customs 
and  etiquette :  it  demanded  the  rapture  of  family  ties,  and  an 
earnestness  of  purpose  to  make  everything  yield  to  the  saci-ed  cause 
in  hand.  The  ''  followers  '  of  Jesus  must  feel  themselves  without  an 
earthly  home  ;  as  the  only  living  men  among  a  host  of  dead  ;  as 
labourers  tied  to  one  plough  and  one  furrow  in  the  world's  harvest- 
field.  Jesus  deemed  it  necessary  to  put  all  this  in  the  most  emphatic 
language  possiljle.  In  proportion  to  the  earnestness  of  his  declara- 
tions should  be  our  care  not  to  misunderstand  or  misapply  them.  It 
would  be  a  perversion  of  their  true  import  to  assume  that  tliey  admit 
of  universal  application.  Elevate  the  tone  and  aims  of  a  Christian 
community  to  the  highest  conceivable  degree,  still  it  could  never  be 
desirable  that  all  should  become  '  followers  '  of  Jesus  in  this  sense  : 
any  general  adoption  of  such  maxims  Avould  lead  to  social  confusion 
and  misery.  All  persons  could  not  simultaneously  choose  a  wandering, 
homeless  life  ;  they  could  not  all  delegate  to  others  the  duties  of 
ordinary  existence,  shaking  off  from  themselves  the  claims  of  family 
relationship  and  wichholding  customary  observances  of  respect ;  they 
could  not  all  go  about  proclaiming  the  kingdom  of  God,  and  holding 
fast  to  that  as  the  one  object  of  life.  Obviously  such  precepts  are 
not  for  all  persons.  Are  they  suitable  for  all  times  ?  That  also  may 
be  open  to  question.  We  can  conceive  a  condition  of  society  when 
such' sacrifices  of  the  few  will  no  longer  be  needed  for  the  spiritual 
-enfranchisement  and  elevation  of  the  many.  Eightly  restricting  the 
application  of  such  a  call  to  those  who  voluntarily  dedicate  them- 
selves entirely  to  the  worship  of  God  and  the  service  of  humanity, 
the  Romish  Church  has  sought,  with  a  laudable  enthusiasm,  to 
enforce  the  perpetual  observance  of  these  principles  of  action  on  all 
her  ministers.  Yows  of  celebacy  are  imposed  on  her  clergy,  and 
monks  and  nuns  are  encouraged  to  live  apart  from  the  world  around 
them.  AYe  know  what  that  system  has  led  to  ;  we  can  trace  its 
•workings  ;  we  can  observe  its  effects.  It  was  a  grand  experiment, 
founded  on  a  sublime  idea, — the  very  chivalry  of  Christianity.  But 
its  attendant  evils  have  exceeded  its  benefits,  its  corruptions  have 
overborne  its  purity,  its  doctrines  of  self-effacement  and  unquestioning 
obedience  have  sapped  the  foundations  of  moral  freedom  and  hindered 
the  growth  of  religious  truth.  Before  attempting  to  build  up  any 
system  on  precepts  enunciated  by  Jesus,  it  behoves  us  to  be  quite 
suvQ  that  we  fully  understand  them,  not  only  his  words  but  his  spirit, 
and  that  we  do  not  erroneously  extend  their  application  beyond  the 
persons  for  whom  and  the  circumstances  and  times  for  which  they 
■vvere  intended. 

At  first  Jesus  had  restricted  the  number  of  his  followers  to  twelve. 
Subsequently  he  invited  others  to  'follow'  him,  and  we  have  seen 
how  carefully  he  made  his  selection,  and  how  rigid  were  the  ideas  of 
self-sacrifice  and  devotion  he  impressed  upon  them.  After  a  time,  he 
found  himself  the  recognised  leader  of  no  less  than  eighty-two 
jDersons,  and  as  he  had  formerly  sent  forth  the  twelve  apostles  he 


84  THE   KING    AND    TEE    KINGDOM:  [part  ii. 

now  appointed  seventy  others  to  nndertake,  under  his  directions,,  a 
similar  mission.  As  on  the  previous  occasion,  he  arranged  that  they 
should  go  forth  not  singly,  nor  all  together,  but  in  pairs  :  and  they 
were  sent  as  harbingers  of  himself,  to  certain  towns  and  localities 
which  he  had  decided  to  visit,  pi-obably  in  company  with  the  twelve 
apostles.  'Now  after  these  things  the  Lord  appointed  seventy  others, 
and  sent  them  two  and  two  l)efore  his  face  into  every  city  and  place, 
Avhither  he  himself  was  about  to  come.'  Tischendorf  retains  the 
word  '  also '  after  '  others  ; '  the  Revisers,  following  the  Vatican  JMS., 
have  omitted  it.  Alford  notes  :  '  The  words  should  not  be  rendered, 
as  in  A.V.,  other  seveniy  also,  but  oiJiers  also,  soventij  in  ninnher. 
The  others  may  refer,  either  to  the  Twelve,  ch.  ix,  1,  or  perhaps,  from 
the  similarity  of  their  mission,  to  the  messengers  in  ch.  ix.  52.' 

This  missionary  enterprise  of  Jesus  was  evidently  conceived  on  a 
large  scale.  All  that  it  was  possible  for  him  to  attempt  in  the  work 
of  evangelisation,  he  did.  But  he  was  painfully  impressed  by  the 
inadequacy  of  the  means  at  his  disposal.  There  was  a  plenteous 
harvest,  but  a  scarcity  of  reapers.  Jesus  began  by  pointing  out  that} 
fact  to  his  followers,  urging  them  to  take  the  same  view  of  the 
matter  as  himself,  and  to  offer  their  own  services  in  the  emergency. 
'  And  he  said  unto  them.  The  harvest  is  plenteous,  but  the  labourers 
are  few :  pray  ye  therefore  the  Lord  of  the  harvest,  that  he  send 
forth  labourers  into  his  harvest.'  Dr.  Young  has  gone  beyond  the 
Authorised  and  Revised  Versions  by  inserting  capitals  :  '  Beseech  ye 
then  the  Lord  of  the  harvest,  so  that  He  may  put  forth  labourers 
into  His  harvest.'  This  is  but  an  exemplification  of  the  idea  which 
has  been  commonly  attached  to  this  saying  of  Jesus.  It  is  assumed, 
as  a  matter  of  course,  to  be  an  exhortation  to  prayer  on  behalf  of 
that  missionary  enterprise  in  particular,  and  of  missionary  enterprises 
generally.  That  interpretation  overlooks  the  nature  of  the  simile, 
Avhich  is  that  of  a  harvest-field :  the  lord  of  the  harvest  is  the  owner 
or  superintendent,  whose  business  it  is  to  arrange  for  the  ingathering; 
these  labourers  are  cognisant,  like  himself,  of  the  need  for  immediate 
action,  and  it  is  expected  of  them  that  they  will  tender  their  services 
for  the  work  Avhich  must  be  done  at  once.  There  must  be  a  perfect 
understanding  and  readiness  on  both  sides.  The  '  lord  of  the  harvest  ^ 
is  there,  waiting  to  employ;  the  'laboin-ers'  go  to  him  direct,  and 
ask  to  be  employed.  As  the  labourers  represent  the  disciples,  so  the 
lord  of  the  harvest  represents  Jesus.  He  had  used  the  same  words 
before  sending  out  the  twelve  apostles  :  '  The  harvest  truly  is  plen- 
teous, but  the  labourers  are  few.  Pray  ye  therefore  the  Lord  of  the 
harvest,  that  he  send  forth  labourers  into  his  harvest.'  Then  it  is 
added  :  '  These  twelve  Jesus  sent  forth.'  In  so  doing  he  acted  the 
part  of  '  the  lord  of  the  harvest.'  He  would  send  forth  only  volun- 
teers, men  who  were  convinced  that  the  right  moment  for  action  had 
come,  who  were  anxious  about  the  work,  and  hopeful  as  to  its  results. 
The  same  conclusion  is  forced  upon  us  by  Luke's  narrative  :  for  after 
saying, '  Pray  ye  therefore  the  Lord  of  the  harvest,  that  he  send  forth 
labourers  into  his  haivest,'  it  is  added  :  '  Go  your  ways  :  behold  I 
send  you  forth.'  Jesus  is  the  sender, '  the  Lord  of  the  harvest.'  And 
lie  would  have  them  conscious  of  the  dangers  to  which  they  would 
be  exposed,  and  of  their  utter  helplessness.  '  I  send  you  forth  as 
lambs  in  the  midst  of  wolves.'     No  representative  of  Jesus  must 


PART  II.]         A    STUDY    OF    THE    FOUR    GOSPELS.  85 

engati'e  in  strife,  even  in  self-defence.  There  is  ndthing  to  indicate 
that  by  'wolves'  .lesns  intended  any  particular  reli^'ious  opponeiits. 
Travellers  in  those  days  were  in  danger  of  attack  from  robbers,  t(j 
whom  possibly  the  allusion  refers.  These  messengers  of  Jesus  must 
carry  with  them  nothing  to  invite  attack,  or  which  would  be  worth 
defending.  '  Carry  no  purse,  no  wallet,  no  shoes.'  Divested  of  all  lo  ^.,1;^.  4 
incumbrances,  they  would  be  recognised  as  simple  messengers,  and  as 
such  they  would  be  at  liberty  also  to  dispense  with  those  formal 
ceremonious  greetings  which  were  customary  l)etweeu  travellers  : 
'  and  salute  no  man  on  the  way.'  Miss  L.  M.  von  Finkelstein,  in  ^  ^ 
one  of  her  lectures,  has  explained  this:  'You  can  observe  the  very 
same  thing  which  was  in  Christ's  mind  every  day  of  your  life  in 
Palestine.  The  ordinary  salutation  between  strangers  meeting  on 
the  road  takes  at  least  half-an-hour,  and  is  a  most  ceremonious  affair. 
All  travellers  greet  each  other  in  the  same  way,  with  one  exception — 
the  messenger  who  runs  from  place  to  place  is  allowed  to  pass  on,  and 
when  people  see  him  run  along  they  merely  call  out  to  him,  and  if  he 
answers  that  he  is  a  messenger  he  passes  unhindered.  Now  Christ's 
disciples  were  essentially  messengers,  and  they  would  hare  had  little 
time  for  preaching  had  they  saluted  every  traveller  on  the  road.  It 
was  for  that  reason  that  the  command  was  given.' 

"Wherever  the  disciples  took  up  their  abode,  Jesus  would  have  them 
intimate,  in  a  solemn  and  striking  manner,  that  they  came  not  foi' 
puri)oses  of  debate  and  strife.     '  And  into  whatsoever  house  je  shah      „    -5 
enter,  first  say  (or,  enter  first,  say)  Peace  m  to  this  house.'     If  the 
owner  of  the  dwelling  were  like-minded,  that  calmness  of  soul  and 
temper  which  they  had  learnt  from  intercourse  with  Jesus  would 
pervade  the  household.     'And  if  a  son  of  peace  be  there,  your  peace      ■.,    fi 
iihall  rest  upon  him  (or,  it).'     But  if,  unhappily,  the  spirit  of  con- 
tention reigned,  they  must  still  retain  that  quiet  mind  with  whicli 
ithey  had  entered.     '  But  if  not,  it  shall  turn  to  you  again.'     Not  for      .,    n 
.any  expressed  differences  of  opinion,  nor  for  any  other  reason,  might 
they  reject  or  seem  to  disparage  the  hospitality  freely  tendered.    'And      „    7. 
in  that  same  house  remain,  eating  and  drinking  such  things  as  they 
give.'     They  would  not  be  eating  the  bread  of  idleness,  and  their 
efforts  for  the  general  welfare  might  fairly  claim  a  bare  subsistence, 
Avithout  any  forfeiture  of  independence  :  '  for  the  labourer  is  worthy      „    r 
of  his  hire.'      No  fickleness  of  purpose,  no  distaste   of  their  sur- 
roundings, should  induce  them  to  change  the  abode  to  which  they 
were  at  first  welcomed.     '  Go  not  from  house  to  house.'  .,    7 

When  they  entered  into  a  city,  and  were  received  as  forerunners  of 
Jesus,  they  were  to  put  forth  the  same  powers  of  healing  as  they  had 
seen  him  exercise,  taking  no  remuneration  in  money,  but  only  such 
hospitality  as  miglit  be  otFered  them.  '  And  into  whatsoever  city  ye  „  s 
enter,  and  they  receive  you,  eat  such  things  as  are  set  before  you : 
and  heal  the  sick  that  arc  therein.'  This  simple,  quiet  declaration  is 
of  startling  import.  In  sending  out  the  twelve  Jesus  had  invested 
them  with  the  same — and  greater — powers.  Now  to  seventy  disciples 
at  once  he  attributes,  as  though  it  were  a  matter  of  course,  the 
miraculous  gift  of  healing.  How  great  must  be  the  mistake  of  those 
who  would  have  ns  regard  the  miracles  of  Jesus  as  proofs  of  his 
divinity  I  He  sought  to  make  them  the  common  heritage  of 
humanity.     There  dwells  in  all  of  us  a  mysterious  power  of  which 


86  -  THE    KING    AND    THE  KINGDOM:  [part  ii. 

wc  are  uncouscious,  an  influence  for  good  which  we  have  never 
learnt  tlie  secret  how  to  exert,  a  phenomenal  attribute  lying  on  the 
border-land  between  matter  and  spirit,  whereby  the  latter  controls 
the  former.  To  the  most  learned  physicians  disease  is  still  a  mystery : 
that  it  can  be  propagated  by  a  touch,  and  without  a  touch,  we  all 
know  ;  Jesus  disclosed  the  fact  that  there  exists  a  similar  contagion 
of  healing,  and  if  only  we  could  put  ourselves  on  his  level,  or  be 
taught,  guided,  influenced  by  him  as  were  the  twelve  and  the  seventy, 

uJohiiiL'  we  should  realise  the  literal  truth  of  his  assertion,  '  Yerily,  verily,  I 
say  unto  you,  He  that  he]ie^•eth  on  me,  the  works  that  I  do  shall  ho 
do  also.' 

Conjointly  with  the  exercise  of  their  powers  of  healing,  the  discijjles 

lot.uke!!  were  to  proclaim  the  nearness  of  God's  kingdom.  'And  say  unto 
them,  The  kingdom  of  God  is  come  nigh  unto  you.'  These  raaiwels 
of  mercy  were  its  manifestations  :  flashes  of  light  and  love  from  the 
heavenly  realm  of  divine  beueflcence.  The  nearness  was  present, 
actual,  a  thing  realised,  not  a  promise  of  something  about  to  be 
revealed.  The  reign  of  God  has  never  been  so  near  to  men  as  in 
those  days  when  Jesus  and  his  apostles  went  about  proclaiming  its 
proximity  and  demonstrating  its  laws  and  powers. 

But  the  messengers  of  Jesus  must  be  prepared  for  rejection  as  well 
as  acceptance.     They  must  not  allow  themselves  to  be  repelled  with- 

1(1  i.ukc  10,  out  making  a  solemn  protest.  '  But  into  whatsoever  city  ye  shall 
11  enter,  and  they  receive  you  not,  go  out  into  the  streets  thereof  and 
say,  Even  the  dust  from  your  city,  that  cleaveth  to  our  feet,  we  do 
wipe  ofi"  against  you.'  The  Eevisers  have  altered  '  cleaveth  on  us  '  to 
'  cleaveth  to  our  feet,'  the  reading  of  the  three  oldest  M88.  being, 
'  cleaveth  on  us  on  our  feet.'  This  symbolical  action  was  not  un- 
common. Alford  explains  :  '  It  was  a  custom  of  the  Pharisees,  when 
they  entered  Judtea  from  a  Gentile  land,  to  do  this  act,  as  renouncing 
all  communion  with  Gentiles.  Eejection,  however  disheartening  and 
contemptuous,  must  in  no  wise  shake  the  assurance  of  the  disciples 
„  11  themselves,  and  they  were  to  give  proof  of  this  by  adding,  '  Howbeit 
know  this,  that  the  kingdom  of  God  is  come  nigh.'  The  proflered 
boon  was  none  the  less  real  and  substantial  because  men,  failing  to 
appreciate  it,  thrust  it  from  them.  The  fofly,  the  Avrong,  the  guilt  of 
such  conduct  would  be  intolerable,  more  so  even  than  that  of  Hodom. 
„  I'j  '  I  say  unto  you,  It  shall  be  more  tolerable  in  that  day  for  Sodom, 
than  for  that  city.'  The  reception  of  these  messengers  was  equiva- 
lent to  the  reception  of  Jesus ;  their  rejection,  to  the  rejection  of 
himself  :  and  the  rejection  of  him,  to  the  rejection  of  God  Himself. 
J,;  '  He  that  heareth  you  heareth  me,  and  he  that  rejecteth  you  re- 
jecteth  me  ;  and  he  that  rejecteth  me  rejecteth  him  that  sent  me.' 
„  13-1:.  Between  verses  12  and  !(]  Luke  inserts  the  following.  '  Woe  unto  . 
thee,  Chorazin  !  woe  unto  thee  Bethsaida  !  for  if  the  mighty  works 
(Gr.  powers)  had  been  done  in  Tyre  and  Sidon,  which  were  done  in 
you,  they  would  have  repented  long  ago,  sitting  in  sackcloth  and 
ashes.  Howbeit  it  shall  he  more  tolerable  for  Tyre  and  Sidon  in  the 
judgment,  than  for  you.  And  tliou,  Capernaum,  shalt  thou  be 
exalted  unto  heaven  ?  thou  shalt  be  brought  down  unto  Hades.'  In 
dealing  with  the  mass  of  material  at  his  command,  Luke  must 
occasionally  have  had  to  rely  on  his  own  judgment  with  respect  to 
the  position  to  be  occupied  by  certain  portions  of  the  narrative.     His 


PART  II.]         A    STUDY    OF    THE    FOUR    GOSPELS.  87 

object  was  to  place  all  things  in  order,  l)ut  the  fitting  place  for 
various  short  traditional  sayings  of  Jesus  might  not  be  obvious. 
These  he  would  naturally  insert  at  the  most  appropriate  and  con- 
venient points.  If,  as  seems  probable,  these  verses  1;>,  14  and  15 
Cduiprisetl  one  of  these  scattered  notes,  the  mention  of  '  Sodom '  in 
connection  with  the  word  '  tolerable  '  would  be  sufficient  to  induce 
the  compiler  to  place  it  where  it  now  stands.  That  might  seem 
])referable  to  cither  dropping  it  in  at  hap-hazard,  without  any  regard 
to  the  context,  or  introducing  it  alone,  as  probably  some  passages  of 
doubtful  standing  are  introduced,  by  some  such  words  as  'Jesus 
said.'  These  remarks  apply,  more  or  less,  with  equal  force  to 
Matthew's  gospel.  It  is  a  mere  tradition  that  he  wrote  it ;  to  what 
extent  it  may  have  been  compiled  by  others,  we  know  not ;  and  it 
does  not  make  any  claim  to  chronological  accuracy.  The  Reverend 
J.J.  llalcombe  arrives  at  the  following  conclusion*:  'A  strict  adhe- 
rence to  an  exact  historical  order  of  events  being  manifestly  incon- 
sistent with  the  plan  on  which  S.  Matthew  wrote,  all  transpositions 
of  his  text  re(juired  in  any  attempt  to  shew  what  that  order  really 
was,  i)rovided  only  they  are  exactly  regulated  by  the  order  vouched 
for  by  other  Evangelists,  are  neither  "  arbitrary,"  nor  in  the  slightest 
degree  inconsistent  with  his  absolute  accuracy.'*  Now  in  Matthew 
we  find  a  parallel  passage  to  that  just  quoted  from  Luke,  but  intro- 
duced at  an  earlier  period.  Alford  has  in  this  instance  held,  contrary 
to  his  usual  practice,  that  the  words  were  spoken  twice  by  Jesus  ;  but 
the  Reverend  J.  J.  Halcombe  has  not  scrupled  to  place  them  in 
juxtaposition  wath  the  passage  in  Luke.  In  Matthew  they  are  intro- 
duced with  these  words  :  '  Then  began  he  to  upbraid  the  cities  n  Mat.  20 
wherein  most  of  his  mighty  works  (Gr.  powers)  were  done,  because 
they  repented  not.'  Tliat  is  a  very  unusual  form  of  preface  ;  whether 
by  ;Matthew  himself  or  by  a  subsequent  compiler,  it  is  simply  the 
writer's  way  of  introducing  the  subject.  If  we  could  be  sure  that 
]\Iatthew  not  only  wrote  Init  arranged  the  narrative  bearing  his 
name,  the  words  '  then  began  he  '  would  denote  a  sequence,  bu°t  not 
otherwise.  Alford  says  :  '  This  expression  betokens  a  change  of 
subject,  but  not  of  locality  or  time  : '  he  does  not  venture  to  argue 
that  it  signifies  identity  of  time,  although  the  'close  connexion  of  the 
whole  chapter '  leads  him  to  that  conclusion.  He  adds  :  '  I  would 
rather  regard  the  l/ien  hegan  lie  as  the  token  of  the  report  of  an  ear- 
wituess,  and  as  pointing  to  a  pause  or  change  of  manner  on  the  part 
of  our  Lord.'  The  word  '  upbraid  '  seems  hardly  consistent  with  the 
character  of  Jesus.  Tischendorf  renders  it  '  reproach.'  Samuel 
Sharpe's  rendering  of  'woe'  by  'alas,'  gives  to  the  utterance  a 
sorrowful  and  compassionate  tone.  Young's  version  is:  'Then 
began  he  to  reproach  the  cities  in  which  most  of  his  mighty  works 
were  done,  because  they  reformed  not.'  Matthew's  record  of  these 
reproaches  or  regrets  of  Jesus  is  as  follows  :  '  Woe  unto  thee, 
Ohorazin  !  woe  unto  thee  Bethsaida !  for  if  the  mighty  works  (Gr. 
powers)  had  been  done  in  Tyre  and  Sidon  which  w^ere  done  in  you, 
they  would  have  repented  long  ago  in  sackcloth  and  ashes.  Howbeit 
I  say  unto  you,  it  shall  be  more  tolerable  for  Tyre  and  Sidon  in  the 
day  of  judgement,  than  for  you.     And  thou,  Capernaum,  shalt  thou 

"Gospel  Difticulties,"  p.  c.\x. 


21-24 


88  TEE    KING    AND    THE   KINCWOM :  [pakt  n. 

be  exalted  unto  heaven  ?  thou  shalt  go  down  unto  Hades  :  for  if  the 
mighty  works  (Gr.  powers)  had  been  done  in  Sodom  which  were  done 
iu  thee,  it  would  have  remained  until  this  day.  Howheit  I  say  unto 
you,  that  it  shall  be  more  tolerable  for  the  land  of  8odom  in  the  day 
of  judgement,  than  for  thee.'  Comparing  this  with  Luke,  there  is 
great  similarity.  The  woe  of  Chorazin  and  Bethsaida  is  word  ibr 
word  the  same,  except  that  Luke  introduces  '  sitting '  and  '  1  say 
unto  you.'  Eespecting  Capernaum  it  seems  doubtful  whether  the 
words  were  'go  down'  or  '  be  brought  down,'  the  authorities  difteriug 
as  to  the  MS.  of  Matthew.  Luke  omits  all  that  follows  in  IMatthew 
after  'Hades,'  but  he  had  just  before  quoted  almost  similar  words 
concerning  Sodom.  Xow  comes  the  important  question,  What  is  the 
real  import  of  the  passages  ?  Alford  rushes  unhesitatingly  to  this 
conclusion  :  '  That  the  reference  here  is  to  the  last  great  daij  of  judg- 
ment is  evident,  by  the  whole  being  spoken  of  in  the  future.'  That 
is  obviously  an  abbreviated  form  of  the  argument,  for  it  does  not 
follow  that  because  the  judgment  is  future  it  must  therefore  be  the 
last  great  day  of  judgment.  The  argument  fully  stated  amounts  to 
this  :  The  judgment  applies  to  Tyre  and  Sidon  as  well  as  to  Chorazin 
and  Bethsaida,  to  Sodom  as  well  as  to  Capernaum  :  therefore,  the 
future  tense  only  being  used,  the  judgment  of  Tyre  and  Sidon  and  of 
;-:odom  must  be  future.  But  Sodom  was  judged  and  destroyed  ages 
ago  :  therefore  that  past  judgment  is  not  referred  to,  but  some  other, 
which  can  only  be  the  last  great  day  of  judgment.  That  this  is 
fairly  put,  is  evident  from  these  words  added  by  Alford  :  '  Had  our 
Lord  been  speaking  of  the  outward  judgment  on  the  rebellious  cities, 
the  future  might  have  been  used  of  them,  but  could  not  of  Sodom, 
which  was  already  destroyed.'  It  may  be  urged,  on  the  contrary, 
that  the  word  '  shall '  cannot  apply  to  Sodom,  and  that  therefore  the 
meaning  of  the  sentence  is  not  that  which  might  appear  from  its 
literal,  hard  and  fast  grammatical  construction.  It  would  invoh'c 
no  change  of  meaning  to  put  it  thus  :  It  shall  be  less  tolerable  for 
thee  in  the  day  of  judgment  than  for  the  land  of  Sodom  ;  or.  It  shall 
be  less  tolerable  for  thee  than  for  the  land  of  Sodom  in  the  day  of 
judgment.  Any  critical  reader,  apart  from  foregone  conclusions  and 
theological  training,  would  understand  that  to  Ite  its  meaning.  Jesus 
was  simply  drawing  a  contrast  between  the  guilt  and  doom  of  Sodom 
and  of  existing  cities.  He  was  not  enunciating  any  new  doctrine  of 
final  retribution,  involving  the  resurrection  not  only  of  individuals 
but  of  cities  and  citizens  in  their  corporate  capacity.  That  is  what 
the  idea  of  Alford  amounts  to,  and  it  is  absurd  on  the  face  of  it. 
Jesus  draws  a  comparison  and  warning  from  ancient  history,  and 
men  thrust  into  it  their  own  conclusions  drawn  irom  other  parts  of 
Scripture  !  Are  the  customary  elisions  of  speech  which  are  common 
in  all  languages,  and  which  are  recognised  intuitively  by  our  judg- 
ment and  common  sense,  to  be  disregarded  when  we  deal  with  the 
utterances  of  Jesus  ?  Every  italicised  passage  is  a  standing  protest 
against  such  a  system  of  interpretation.  We  may  surely  claim  the 
right  of  grasping  an  idea  without  that  circumlocution  which  strict 
grammarians  might  insist  on.  Take  the  passage  in  Luke  :  '  It  shall 
be  more  tolerable  in  that  day  for  Sodom,  tlian  for  that  city.'  The 
meaning  is  on  the  surface  :  That  city  is  less  to  be  borne  with  in  that 
day,  than   was   Sodom.     If  more   tolerable  for  Sodom,  surely  less 


PART  II.]         A    STUDY    OF    THE    FOUR    GOSI'FLS,  89 

tolerable  for  that  city ;  so  the  sense  is  unaltered  if  we  put  the  sentence 
tlius  :  It  shall  be  less  tolerable  in  that  day  for  that  city,  than  for 
iSodoni.  Now  all  is  seen  to  dejiend  on  the  position  <2,'iven  to  the 
words,  which  may  be  taken  in  this  order  :  In  that  day  lor  that  city 
it  shall  1)6  less  tolerable  than  for  Sodom.  The  future  tense  has  no 
reference  to  Sodom,  the  judgment  of  which,  being  past,  could  be 
thus  held  up  as  an  example.  It  is  open  to  question  whether  the  right 
sense  is  attached  to  the  word  '  tolerable.'  Is  it  the  conduct  whicli  is 
'  more  tolerable  '  in  the  eyes  of  the  judge,  or  the  punishment  in- 
flicted by  the  judge  which  is  'more  tolerable '  to  the  criminal  ?  The 
former,  most  probably  ;  for  although  the  latter  is  generally  assumed, 
it  iu^'olves  the  introduction  of  an  extraneous  idea,  that  of  the  state, 
■condition,  or  punishment,  so  that  in  Beza's  Latin  version  each  of  the 
,six  passages  in  which  the  word  '  tolerable '  occurs  is  amplified  by  the 
introduction  of  the  word  '  conditio  : '  '  tolerabilior  erit  conditio  terree 
.Sodomorum  et  Gomorrha?orum,'  although,  strange  to  say,  only  in 
•()  Mark  11  is  the  word  '  conditio  '  italicised. 

The  estimate  Jesus  was  led  to  form  of  his  countrymen  is  not  a 
little  startling.  Driven  from  Jud[Ba,  he  laboured  ni  Galilee  ;  but  he 
was  far  from  satisfied  with  the  result  of  his  cflbrts,  even  in  the  places 
where  they  had  been  most  abundant.  He  had  not  succeeded  in 
bringing  about  the  moral  reformation  at  which  he  aimed.  He  could 
l^reach  to  the  people,  he  could  work  miracles  among  them,  but  he 
could  not  influence  their  hearts  or  transform  their  lives.  They 
remained  impenitent,  unreformed  ;  and  he  was  forced  to  the  conclu- 
sion that  the  Gentiles  were  more  open  to  conviction  and  amendment 
than  were  the  Jews.  Even  the  heathen  cities  of  Tyre  and  Sidon. 
against  Avhich  Jewish  prophets  had  been  commissioned  to  launch 
ibvth  divine  threatenings,  and  which  '  had  been  chastised  by  God's 
judgment  under  Nebuchadnezzar  and  Alexander'  (Alford),  were,  in 
the  opinion  of  Jesus,  less  obdurate  than  Chorazin  and  Bethsaida.  So 
intense  was  the  conviction  of  Jesus  with  respect  to  the  moral  obtuse- 
ness  of  those  among  whom  he  had  laboured,  that  he  declared  Sodom 
itself  would  have  been  saved  by  such  a  revelation  as  Capernaum  had 
received  and  despised.  And  yet,  at  this  very  time,  C-apernaum  was 
regarding  itself  with  complacency  and  self-glorification,  dreaming  of 
advancement  heavenwards  when  her  sins  were  dragging  her  down  to 
death.  There  might  be  material  prosperity,  increasing  commerce,  grow- 
ing wealth  :  what  could  all  that  profit  when  spiritual  indifference  pre- 
vailed, leading  to  hatred  of  the  Truth  and  rejection  of  the  Messiah  ? 

No  account  is  gi\'en  of  the  labours  of  the  seventy.  After  a  time 
which  may  have  been  long  or  short,  they  returned  to  Jesus,  delighted 
with  the  success  of  their  mission,  and  enthusiastic  about  the  gifts  of 
healing  which  they  had  been  able  to  exercise.  'And  the  seventy  lo Luke ir 
returned  with  joy,  saying.  Lord  (Sir — Young),  even  the  devils  (Gr. 
demons)  are  subject  unto  us  in  thy  name.'  To  this  observation 
Jesus  made  a  remarkable  reply.  'And  he  said  unto  them,  I  beheld  „  is 
Satan  fallen  as  lightning  from  heaven.'  The  Authorised  Version 
has  :  '  as  lightning  fall  from  heaven.'  In  effect  the  sense  is  the 
same,  the  iustantaneousness  of  the  flash  making  it  impossible  to  draw 
a  distinction  between  '  fall '  and  '  fallen.'  Tischendorf  renders 
'  falling  ; '  Young  '  having  fallen  ; '  the  '  Englishman's  Greek  New 
Testament ; '  '  I  beheld  Satan  as  lightning  out  of  the  heaven  falling.' 


llii.Cor.  14 
1." 


90  THE   KING    A  AW    THE    KINGDOM:  [part  ii. 

From  fallen  lightniiio-  no  danger  is  to  be  dreaded  ;  it  has  become 
powerless,  extinct.  The  simile  is  full  of  meaning.  To  the  mind  of 
Jesus,  the  spiritual  Adversary  of  himself  and  of  mankind  stood 
revealed,  as  real,  as  threatening,  as  irresistible,  as  demonstrable,  as  is 
the  lightning  which  springs  from  its  unseen  source  above,  and  which 
falls  upon  ns,  how,  whence  or  why  we  know  not.  That  there  should 
exist  a  spiritual  Being  inimical  to  mankind,  is  no  more  incredible  or 
mysterious  than  is  the  fact  that  hghtning  may  consume  us,  or  floods 
drown  us,  or  malaria  infect  us.  The  constitution  of  the  physical 
universe  does  not  exclude  these  perils  to  the  body,  and  the  constitu- 
tion of  the  moral  universe  may  with  equal  reason  be  held  to  involve 
similar  spiritual  perils.  The  eye  of  Jesus  discerned  realities  invisible 
to  us,  and  he  spoke  with  equal  certainty  of  the  ministrations  of 
heavenly  messengers  and  of  attacks  from  a  spiritual  adversary. 
Modern  scientists,  accustoming  themselves  to  withhold  credence  from 
what  they  cannot  see,  or  feel,  or  in  some  way  test  and  demonstrate 
by  analysis,  would  laugh  away  all  such  ideas.  Not  so  Jesus.  He 
believed  in  them,  promulgated  them.  Spiritual  influences  inimical 
to  human  welfare  were  as  fully  within  his  category  of  actually- 
existent  dangers,  as  were  serpents  and  scorpions  with  their  oifensive 
instincts  and  poisonous  fangs.  The  former  class  of  agents  was  as 
real  and  malevolent  as  the  latter,  and  the  one  might  be  taken  as 
representative  of  the  other.  The  dangers  from  both  were  equal,  and 
instead  of  bidding  us  shut  our  eyes  to  either,  Jesus  assured  his 
disciples  that  through  the  power  which  he  had  given  they  could 
safely  encounter  and  overcome  them.  '  Behold,  I  have  given  you 
authority  to  tread  upon  serpents  and  scorpions,  and  over  all  the 
power  of  the  enemy  :  and  nothing  shall  in  any  wise  hurt  you.' 

Let  us  keep  to  the  similes  Avhich  Jesus  used  as  illustrations  of 
Satanic  agency, — the  lightning-flash  and  the  serpent-sting.  Thunder- 
storms are  comparatively  rare,  and  injury  from  a  thunderbolt  rarer 
still.  Moreover,  the  wit  cf  man  devised  the  lightning-rod  to  attract 
the  flash  and  guide  it  harmless  to  the  ground.  .Inst  so,  the  incursions 
of  demoniacal  agency  were  always  fitful,  and  Jesus  interposed  a 
barrier  between  us  and  them,  warding  off  in  some  simple  but  efficient 
Avay,  as  by  some  master-stroke  of  heavenly  science,  their  evil  influ- 
ences. We  can  rejoice  that  these  are  now  altogether  exceptional. 
Our  immunity  may  not  be  so  complete  as  we  flatter  ourselves,  but 
even  Avere  it  perfect,  it  would  ill-become  ns  to  misconstrue  it  as  an 
evidence  that  the  danger  was  always  imaginary  and  the  dread  of  it 
irrational.  Take  the  other  metaphor, — of  serpents  and  scorpions. 
Between  such  poisonous  reptiles  and  the  human  race  there  has  ever 
been  a  deadly  feud.  As  civilization  has  advanced,  they  have 
declined,  the  law  of  self-preservation  impelhng  men  to  hunt  out  and 
extirpate  them  with  remorseless  energy.  Abounding  most  in  tropic 
heat,  some  parts  of  the  world  have  never  known  these  dangerous 
scourges  ;  even  from  places  where  they  most  abounded  they  have- 
slunk  away,  and  tlie  race  must  needs  be  finally  crushed  out.  So  has 
it  been,  and  will  be,  with  hostile  spiritual  influences.  The  Holy 
Spirit  bestowed  by  Jesus  on  his  disciples  has  supplied  an  antidote  to- 
the  deadly  venom  of  man's  ghostly  enemies,  whose  attacks  may 
be  sometimes  insidious  and  sometimes  direct.  The  apostle  Pauli 
wrote  :  '  Even  Satan  fashioneth  himself  into  an  angel  of  light.     It  is. 


PART  II.]         A    STUDY    OF    THE    FOUR    GOSPELS.  91 

no  great  thir.ii;  therefore  if  hi«  ministers  also  fashion  themselves  as 

ministers  of  rio-Jiteousness  ;  whose  end  sluiU  be  according  to  their 

works.'     Reh'gious  hypocrites  were  classed  by  John  the  liaptist  and 

by  Jesus  as  viperous.     'Ye  offspring  of  vipers,  who  warned  you  to  3  Mat.  7 

flee  from  the  wrath  to  come  ? '     'Ye  serpents,  ye  offspring  of  vipers,  •23  Mat.  :i;{ 

how  shall  ye  esca])e  the  judgement  of  (Johenna  ?  '     Over  such  men, 

and  over  the  spirit  which  animates  them,  Jesus  promised  his  followers 

an  easy  and  ]K'rfect  triumph.     '  liehold,  I  have  given  you  authority 

to  tread  upon  serpents  and  scorpions,  and  over  all   the  power  of  the 

enemy :  and  nothing  shall  in  any  wise  hurt  you.' 

Yet  not  in  that  triumpli  over  spiritual  foes  would  Jesus  have  his 
disciples  exult,  but  in  their  own  heavenly  privileges.  '  Howbeit  in  10  luu.cjo 
this  rejoice  not,  that  the  spirits  are  subject  unto  you  ;  but  rejoice 
that  your  names  are  written  in  heaven.'  The  word  '  rather,'  before 
'  rejoice,'  has  been  omitted  by  the  Revisers.  It  is  not  in  the  three 
oldest  M8S.  Y'oung  renders  :  *  Your  names  were  written  in  the 
heavens,'  and  Tischendorf,  'your  names  have  been  written  in 
heaven.'  The  idea  seems  to  be  the  same  as  is  thus  expressed  else- 
where :  '  Y'e  are  come  ...  to  the  general  assembly  and  church  of  12  Hcb.  -n 
the  firstborn  who  are  enrolled  in  heaven.'  Not  strife  and  victory  on 
earth,  even  in  the  noblest  cause,  is  to  be  the  limit  of  Christian 
expectation,  but  that  heavenly  citizenship  from  which  all  evil  will  be 
excluded,  and  in  which  the  powers  and  prerogatives  of  redeemed 
humanity  will  find  their  free  and  fullest  scope. 

The  Authorised  Version  continues  as  follows  :  '  In  that  hour  Jesus 
rejoiced  in  spirit.'  The  Revisers  have  capitalised  the  last  word,  and 
placed  '  Holy '  before  it,  following  the  reading  of  the  two  oldest 
MSS.  Tischendorf  also  renders  :  '  In  that  hour  he  exulted  in  the 
Holy  Spirit.'  Alford  inserts  this  note  :  '  Read,  with  all  the  most 
ancient  authorities,  the  liohj  spirit  * '  he  does  not  venture  to  use 
capitals.  By  doing  so,  here  and  elsewhere,  the  text  assumes  in  the 
eyes  of  ordinary  readers  a  meaning  beyond  the  sense  contained  in  the 
original.  The  idea  of  a  separate  and  divine  personality  inevitably 
springs  up  on  seeing  the  words  '  Holy  Spirit '  so  printed,  which  idea 
does  not  necessarily  arise  when  capital  letters  are  not  used.  Samuel 
Sharpe  renders  :  '  In  that  hour  Jesus  rejoiced  in  his  spirit.'  Avoid- 
ing both  of  these  extremes,  let  us  neither  omit  '  holy,' — for  it  is 
found  in  the  oldest  copies  extant, — nor  capitalise  it,  nor  insert  the 
W'ord  'his.'  What  is  the  meaning  of  the  expression,  'Jesus  rejoiced 
in  the  holy  spirit  ? '  Apart  from  preconceived  theological  dogmas, 
no  thought  of  any  '  spirit '  except  that  of  Jesus  himself  would  enter 
our  minds.  We  have  long  since  arrived  at  the  conclusion  that  the 
term  '  holy  '  is  applied  to  any  thing  or  any  person  specially  devoted 
to  the  service  of  (jod.  In  his  spirit  of  self-dedication  to  the  divine 
will,  Jesus  now  i-ejoiced.  That  this  is  the  true  sense  becomes  more 
evident  from  what  follows.  Jesus  gives  thanks  to  his  Father,  the 
supreme  Ruler,  humbly  acquiescing  in  the  unfolding  of  His  purposes. 
'  In  that  same  hour  he  rejoiced  in  (or,  by)  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  said,  10  Lnko:^!, 
I  thank  (or,  praise)  thee,  0  Father,  Lord  of  heaven  and  earth,  that 
thou  didst  hide  these  things  from  the  wise  and  understanding,  and 
didst  reveal  them  unto  babes.'  The  seventy  disciples  had  returned  to 
Jesus,  congratulating  themselves  and  him  on  the  effectual  exercise  of 
their  miraculous  powers,  especially  that  of  exorcism.     He  had  dis- 


92  THE    KING    AND    TEE    KINGDOM:  [part  ii. 

coursed  with   them  on  this  matter,   had   assured   them  of  perfect 
immunity  from  spiritual  evil,  and  of  victory  over  it,  but  had  bidden 
them   rejoice   rather   in   the   prospect  opened  out  to   them  of  the 
heavenly  lite.     Surrounded  by  his  band  of  earnest  disciples,  the  heart 
of  Jesus  overflowed  with  thankfulness  at  the  success  which  had  bceu 
granted  to  his  mission.     But  his  disciples  were  men  of  humble  rank 
in  life ;  the  ruling  class  of  his  countrymen  held  aloof  from  him  ; 
scribes  and  Pharisees  ranged  themselves  in  opposition.     None  more 
sensible, — more  sensitive,  indeed, — of  this  than  .Jesus  himself.     Look- 
ing round  upon  his  disciples,  comparing  them  with  jiersons  renowned 
for  learning,  'the  wise  and  understanding,'  he  was  free  to  admit  the 
fact  that  his  adherents  suffered  by  the  comparison  :  the  contrast  \\'as 
as  great  as  that  between  men  grown  up  and  highly  educated,  and 
very 'babes.'     Jesus  was  learning  to  submit  to  the  inevitable.     He 
had  sought  in  vain  to  gain  the  ears  and  hearts  of  others.     It  was 
obviously  the  divine  purpose  that  he  should  succeed  in  this  direction 
only.     His  work  had  fallen  short  of  his  ideal.     He  now  recognises 
the  solemn  fact  that  this  apparent  failure  was  of  divine  appointment. 
It  was  strange  that  those  best  qualified  to  judge  should  reject  his 
teaching  ;  but  it  was  far  more  wonderful  that  these  '  babes  '  should 
attain  to  the  heavenly  wisdom.     God  had  chosen  the  weak  things  of 
the  world  to  confound  the  wise.     Convinced  that  it  was  so,  Jesus 
bows  to  the  divine  will.     '  Yea,  Father,  for  (or,  that)  so  it  was  well- 
pleasing  in  thy  sight.'     This  view  of  the  text  is  confirmed  by  Alford, 
Avho  inserts  the  following  note  on  the  words  '  I  thank  thee  : '  '  Not 
merely,  I  praise  thee,  but  in  the  force  of  the  Greek  word  I  confess  to 
thee,  I  recognize  the  justice  of  thy  iloiiigs.''     Young  renders,  'I  confess 
to  thee.  Father,  Lord  of  the  hea^'en  and  of  the  earth,  that  Thou  didst 
hide  these  things  from  wise  men  and  prudent,  and  didst  reveal  them 
to  babes  ;  yes,  Father,  for  so  it  was  good  pleasure  before  thee.'     The 
ac(juiescence  of  Jesus  was  complete,  being  based  upon  his  conviction 
that  all  his  experiences  throughout  life  were  divinely  arranged.     That 
seems  to  be  the  import  of  the  words  which  follow  :  '  All  things  have 
been   delivered   unto   me   of   my   Father.'     The    '  all   things '  here 
alluded  to  must  signify  what  had  just  been  spoken  of, — the  works 
and  teaching  of  Jesus  with  all  the  consequences  resulting  therefrom. 
He  had   been  carrying  out  God's  purposes,  and  if  he  could  gain  no 
greater  measure  of  success,  it  was  simply  because  in  the  divine  wisdom 
men  were  left  free  to  acknowledge  or  deny  him,  to  accept  or  reject 
his  salvation.     His  assurance  sprang  from  the  consciousness  that  he 
was  doing  God's  work  in  the  world.     It  ill  becomes  us  to  claim,  or 
rather  to  parody  his  claim  to  a  similar  special  divine  direction.     In 
one  sense,  of  course,  all  that  befalls  ourselves  is  the  Lord's  doing  : 
his  laAvs  cannot  be  broken,  his  retributions  cannot  be  escaped.     But 
to  attribute  the  failure  of  our  plans  and  hopes,  springing  often  from 
onr  greed  of  wealth,  our  selfish  ambitions,  or  brought  about  by  errors 
of  judgment  or  conduct,  to  providential  interposition, — this  is  rather 
profanity  than  piety.     Jesus,  in  all  his  plans  and  purposes,  was  one 
with  the  Father,  supreme  and  alone  among  men  in  his  knowledge  of 
God,  and  himself,  in  his  true  character  and  nature,  unrecognized  by 
men  and  known  to  the  Father  only.     '  And  no  one  knowetii  who  the 
Son  is,  save  the  Father  ;  and  who  the  Father  is  save  the  Son.'    But 
that  knowledge  of  God  which  men  possessed  not,  it  was  the  office  and 


PART  11.]         .4    STUDY    OF    THE    FOUR    GOSPELS.  93 

life-work  of  Jesus  to  impart,  therefore  he  added  :  '  and  be  to  whom- 
soever the  Son  willeth  to  reveal  /lim.'  The  Authorised  Version 
stands  :  'and  /ic  to  whom  the  Son  will  reveal  him: '  the  alteration  of 
'will'  into  'willeth  to,'  is  important.  Yonnfj;  and  I'ischendorf 
l)ring  out  the  same  sense  ;  the  former  :  'and  to  whomsoever  the  Sou 
may  will  to  reveal  Nhn  ,- '  the  latter  :  '  and  he  to  whom  the  Son  may 
wish  to  reveal  him.'  Jesus  did  not,  would  not,  could  not  make  the 
same  revelation  to  all  alike  ;  it  was  not  the  work  of  a  moment,  of  a 
month,  of  a  year,  or  even  of  a  life  :  it  depended  not  on  the  time 
employed  in  teaching,  nor  could  any  teaching  avail  unless  the  disciple 
himself  were  recejjtive  of  the  truth.  But  to  earnest  disciples,  such 
as  those  who  now  stood  by  him  apart  from  ordinary  listeners,  Jesus 
did  indeed  disclose  new  truths.  To  these  disciples  he  now  turned 
aside,  and  addressed  them  privately,  congratulating  them  on  their 
opportunities  and  the  ns2  they  made  of  them.  'And  turning  to  the  lo  Luke  23 
disciples,  he  said  ]n"ivately.  Blessed  are  the  eyes  which  see  the  things 
that  ye  see.'  Tischeudorf  has,  '  he  said  apart  ; '  Young,  '  he  said  by 
themselves.'  They  saw  the  Father's  love  and  goodwill  to  mankind 
manifested  througli  the  miracles  of  Jesus  :  disease  and  infirmity  fly- 
ing at  his  touch,  mental  and  spiritual  disorder  banished,  body,  soul 
and  spirit  released  from  the  trammels  of  evil,  and  placed  once  more 
in  the  path  of  true  freedom  and  happiness.  And  the  doctrine  also  of 
Jesus  was  eijnally  new  to  the  world :  his  works  and  words  satisfied 
aspirations  hitherto  unfulfilled  :  '  For  I  say  unto  you,  that  many  „  -24 
jn'ophets  and  kings  desired  to  see  the  things  which  ye  see,  and  saw 
them  not ;  and  to  hear  the  things  which  ye  hear,  and  heard  them 
not.'  On  the  words  '  prophets  and  kings,'  Alford  has  the  note  : 
•  David  united  both  these,  also  Solomon.'  That  seems  to  miss  the 
full  significance  of  the  allusion.  Jesus  does  not  limit  it  to  those  who 
combined  both  offices.  His  observation  is  general :  '  ijum//  prophets 
and  kings.'  Prophets,  teachers  of  morality,  have  longed  for  a  revela- 
ti(ni  of  pure  and  perfect  truth,  a  system  of  ethics  based  on  the  wants 
of  humanity  and  harmonising  to  the  fullest  extent  with  social 
requirements.  Many  kings  have  sought  to  promote  the  physical 
well-being  of  their  subjects,  to  eradicate  disease,  to  remove  the  evils 
attendant  upon  ignorance  and  vice,  to  abate  misery,  to  angment 
Jiappiness,  to  lengthen  the  span  and  brighten  the  monotony 
of  our  earthly  existence.  Jesus  alone  among  mankind  was  able  to 
demonstrate  the  feasibility,  and  inaugurate  the  era,  of  the  moral  and 
])hysical  regeneration  of  mankind. 

These  remarks  to  the  disciples  are  recorded  by  Luke  only,  but  up 
to  that  point  his  account  agrees  very  closely  with  that  Of  Matthew, 
which  is  as  follows:  'At  that  season  Jesus  answered  and  said,  I  iiMat.-jo--_'; 
thank  (or,  ])raise)  thee,  0  Father,  Lord  of  heaven  and  earth,  that  thou 
didst  hide  these  things  from  the  wise  and  understanding,  and  didst 
reveal  them  unto  babes  :  yea.  Father,  for  (or,  that)  so  it  was  well 
])]easing  in  thy  sight.  All  things  have  been  delivered  unto  me  of  my 
Father  :  and  no  one  knoweth  the  Son,  save  the  Father  ;  neither  doth 
any  know  the  Father,  save  the  Son,  and  he  to  whom  the  Son  willeth 
to  reveal  him.'  '  Knoweth  the  Son — knoweth  who  the  Son  is  ; 
neither  doth  any  know  the  Father — and  who  the  Father  is  :'  these 
ai-e  the  only  discrepancies  here  between  ]\Iatthew  and  Luke,  the  two 
narratives  being  otherwise  word  for  word  the  same.     Evidently  both 


04  THE    KING    AND    TEE   KINGDOM:  [pakt  ii. 

evangelists  had  the  same  or  an  equally  reliable  record  :  the  slight 
divergence  is  just  such  as  might  naturally  occur  between  two  reporters, 
or  be  introduced  by  a  compiler. 

Matthew  alone  records  the  following  sayings  of  Jesus.  They 
appear  to  have  been  spoken  to  the  multitude,  forming  no  part  of  that 
private  address  to  the  disciples  which  is  given  by  Luke  but  not 
alluded  to  l)y  Matthew.  The  crowd  which  surrounded  Jesus  no 
doubt  comprised  all  classes,  the  majority  being  of  the  toiling  poor. 
That  many  of  them  were  persons  to  whom  a  meal  free  of  expense  was 
a  welcome  boon,  and  the  vain  hope  of  living  u})on  the  bounty  of 
Jesus  an  inducement  to  follow  him,  is  evident  from  his  telling  them 
on  one  occasion,  *  Ye  seek  me,  not  because  ye  saw  signs,  but  because 
ye  ate  of  the  loaves  and  Avere  filled.'  Jesus  could  not  but  feel  com- 
passion for  those  engaged  in  the  monotonous  round  of  ceaseless  and 
exhausting  toil.  He  seems  to  have  been  struck  by  the  outward  signs 
of  overwork  apparent  in  many  of  those  about  him,  and  he  had  a  word 
of  consolation  for  them.  He  could  encourage  them  by  no  socialistic 
theories,  no  promise  of  a  more  equal  distributio?:".  of  property,  no 
immediate  prospect  of  an  ameliorated  earthly  lot  ;  he  was  indeed 
trying  to  lay  the  groundwork  for  all  that,  but  the  reconstitution  of 
society  upon  principles  of  Christian  brotherhood  was  a  far-off  ideal, 
— alas  !  that  it  should  be  so  still, — and  until  its  realization,  patient 
submission  Avas  the  only  attainable  alleviation.  He  had  a  message 
for  them,  not  of  emancipation  from  their  heavy  toil,  but  of  some 
easing  and  lightening  of  the  burden.  '  Come  to  me,  all  ye  labouring 
and  burdened  ones,  and  I  will  give  you  rest.'  The  promise  is  not  of 
entire  immunity,  but  of  partial  repose  from  toil.  The  old  English 
version,  standing  in  the  Communion  service,  is  'I  will  refresh  you,' 
which  corresponds  with  Luther's,  '  Ich  will  euch  erquicken.'  How 
did  Jesus  propose  to  effect  this  ?  By  supplying  them  with  his  own 
form  of  yoke,  and  teaching  them  his  own  method  of  l:)urden-bearing. 
'Take  my  yoke  upon  3'ou,  and  learn  of  me.'  He  would  have  them 
imitate  his  "own  disposition  of  meekness  and  humility  :  '  for  I  am 
meek  and  lowly  in  heart.'  That  would  ensure  them  spiritual  repose, 
recruitment  of  their  flagging  energies,  the  sense  of  rest  in  the  midst 
of  toil  :  '  and  ye  shall  find  rest  unto  your  souls.'  He  could  assure 
them  of  this  by  his  own  experience.  His  yoke  Avas  comfortable  to 
the  shoulder,  and  it  reduced  the  weight  of  the  burden.  '  For  my 
yoke  is  easy,  and  my  burden  is  light.'  Alford  defines  the  word 
'  easy  '  as  '  not  exacting  ;  answering  to  Jcmd,  spoken  of  persons.'  Tis- 
chendorf  renders,  '  for  my  yoke  is  good  ; '  Luther,  '  denn  mein  Joch 
ist  sanft — for  my  yoke  is  soft.'  By  the  simile  of  a  yoke,  AA'hich  is 
necessarily  associated  Avith  the  idea  of  a  heavy  burden,  Jesus  intimates 
that  there  can  be  no  escape  from  the  labours  incident  to  our  lot  in 
life.  He  is  not  alluding  to  any  burden  Avhich  he  himself  places  upon 
men's  shoulders,  nor  does  the  yoke  represent  any  restriction  by  him 
upon  our  freedom  of  action  or  Avill.  Probably  there  is  no  passage  of 
Scripture  more  commonly  misread  than  this  ;  the  simile  is  constantly 
taken  apart  from  its  proper  sense,  the  context  being  disregarded  and 
the  exhortation  of  Jesus  misconstrued  and  misapplied.  Alford,  on 
the  words  '  learn  of  me,'  speaks  of  '  the  reception  of  the  divine  grace 
for  the  pardon  of  sin,  and  the  breaking  of  the  yoke  of  the  corruption 


p.MiT  II.]         A    STUDY    OF    THE    FOUR    GOSPELS.  95 

of  our  uatnre.'  llou'  far  off  arc  such  ideas  from  tliesc  sayinj^s  of 
Jesus  !  He  does  not  allude  to  the  breakiug*  of  any  yoke,  nor  to  any 
kind  of  moral  corrujition.  Alford  says  aji^ain  :  'Doubtless,  outward 
and  bodily  misery  is  not  shut  out  ;  but  the  promise,  rest  to  your 
■souls,  is  only  a  spiritual  promise.  Our  Lord  does  not  promise  to 
tliose  who  come  to  him  freedom  from  toil  or  burden,  l)ut  rest  in  ilie 
soul,  which  shall  make  all  yokes  easy,  and  all  burdens  light.'  That 
accords  with  tlic  simile,  except  that  it  is  not  intimated  that 'all 
yokes'  will  be  easy,  liut  only  the  yoke  of  Jesus,  which  is  his  spii'it  of 
meekness  and  humility.  Alford  goes  altogether  outside  the  advice 
and  assurance  so  lovingly  given  by  Jesus,  when  he  adds  :  '  The  main 
invitation  however  is  to  those  burdened  Avith  the  yoke  of  sin,  and  of 
the  Lnv,  which  was  added  Itecause  of  sin.  All  who  feel  that  burden 
are  invited.'  What  a  perversion  and  confusion  of  the  thought 
and  metaphor !  The  yoke  which  eases  a  l)urden  is  spoken  of 
as  a  burden  ;  the  '  yoke  of  sin '  in  connection  with  the  divine 
law,  either  as  though  both  were  burdens,  or  as  though  the  yoke 
of  sin  made  the  law  a  burden.  Then:  'all  who  feel  that  burden 
are  invited  : '  Jesus  invites  men  who  feel  the  burden  of  sin,  and 
teaches  them  how  to  find  rest  to  their  souls  under  it !  Is  it  not  evident 
tb.at  such  d(»ctrines  about  sin  and  the  law  have  no  connection  with 
these  sayings  of  Jesus  ?  The  ideas  and  subjects  are  incongruous,  and 
the  attempt  to  amalgamate  them  leads  to  contradictions  and  absurdi- 
ties. The  application  of  the  simile  is  sufficiently  wide,  without  in- 
troducing matters  on  which  it  has  no  bearing.  The  labour  and  loa,d 
of  life  represent  far  more  than  mere  bodily  toil.  The  nature  of  the 
burden  varies  :  whatever  constitutes  a  trial,  an  overtasking  of  the 
energies, — anxiety,  grief,  ill-he;ilth,  disappointment,  the  failure  of  our 
projects,  the  strain  and  worry  of  business,  injustice  from  others,  un- 
avoidable poverty,  family  responsibilities  and  sorrows, — there  are 
burdens  innumerable  to  be  borne,  and  only  this  yoke  of  Jesus  which 
can  act  as  a  lever  to  the  lightening  of  the  load  and  the  easing  of  the 
weary  shoulder.  Jesus  gave  this  counsel  at  a  moment  when  his  spirit 
rejoiced,  not  that  events  had  turned  out  as  he  designed,  but  because 
he  bowed  to  the  Father's  will  and  submitted  to  the  decree  of  his 
supreme  wisdom.  He  had  '  learned  obedience  by  the  things  which 
he  suttered,'  and  out  of  the  fulness  of  his  own  experience  he  eulogised 
the  repose  springing  out  of  meekness  and  lowliness  of  heart.  Wc 
need  not  seek  to  extend  the  broad  and  beautiful  lesson  here  taught 
by  Jesus  ;  yet,  so  long  as  his  words  are  not  perverted  from  their 
true  sense,  ^ve  are  not  restricted  in  their  use,  and  they  have  never 
been  more  touchingly  applied  than  in  the  first  verse  of  the  well- 
known  hymn  : 

'  I  heard  the  voice  of  Jesus  saj', 

Come  unto  nie  and  rest. 

Lay  down,  tliou  weary  one,  lay  doAvn, 

Thy  head  U[K>n  my  breast : 

I  came  to  Jesus  as  I  vas, 

"Weary,  and  worn,  and  sad  : 

I  found  in  him  a  restin.t^-place, 

And  he  has  made  me  glad. 

*  I  heard  the  voice  of  Jesus  say, 
Behold,  I  tVeely  give 
The  living  water,  tliirsty  one, 
Stoop  down,  and  drink,  and  live  : 


06  THE    KING    AND    THE    KINGDOM:  [part  ii. 

I  came  to  Jesus,  and  I  ilrniik 

Of  that  life-giving  stream  ; 

]\[y  tliirst  was  qnenched,  my  soul  revived. 

And  now  I  live  in  Him, 

'  I  lieard  the  voice  of  Jesns  say, 
I  am  this  dark  world's  Light  ; 
Look  unto  Me,  thy  morn  shall  rise, 
And  all  thy  day  be  bright  : 
I  looked  to  Jesus,  and  I  found 
In  him  mv  Star,  my  Sun  ; 
And  in  that  Light  of  life  I'll  walk 
Till  travelling  days  are  done.' 

Such  ideas  stand  forth  among  the  most  perfect  expressions  of 
Christian  faith,  hope  and  joj.  Beh'eving-  sonls  apply  thein  according 
to  their  individnal  moods  and  experiences.  To  one  here  and  there, 
perchance,  the  singing  of  the  hymn,  cxchiding  the  last  two  lines, 
brings  tender  reminiscences  of  some  dear  one  who  has  left  this  world  to 
find  in  Jesns  the  rest,  the  water  of  life,  and  the  light  of  the  world  to 
come.  It  peals  forth  as  the  rapturous  death-bed  song  for  the  dying- 
Christian,  or  rather  as  the  resurrection  hymn  of  the  newly-departed. 
But  the  liberty  we  claim  of  thus  nsing  the  sayings  and  promises  of 
Jesus  altogether  apart  from  their  primary  connection,  should  make 
us  only  the  more  careful,  in  our  expositions  of  Scripture,  to  adhere 
closely  to  their  proper  significance  as  shown  by  the  context.  The 
misinterpretation  and  misapplication  of  this  declaration  of  Jesus  can 
scarcely  fail  to  act  and  react  injuriously,  involving  not  only  the  loss 
of  the  lesson  he  would  have  us  learn,  l)ut  also  wrong  judgments  and 
estrangements  of  Christian  sympathy  with  respect  to  our  fellow  men. 
Our  poorer  brethren,  living  hard  lives  of  unremitting  toil,  lacking 
the  refinements,  the  luxuries,  alas  !  even  the  decencies  of  civilisation, 
herding  in  unsanitary  dwellings,  nourished  on  inferior  food,  its  supply 
often  scanty  and  always  precarious,  with  no  hope  of  amelioration  on 
this  side  the  grave, — yet  admidst  all  their  disadvantages  active, 
energetic,  industrious,  cheerful,  contented, — what  splendid  examples 
do  they  constitute  of  that  meekness  and  lowliness  of  heart  counselled 
by  Jesus  as  the  best  panacea  for  the  labouring  classes  throughout 
the  world  !  What  grand  specimens  of  humanity  exist  among  them  ! 
If  we  rail  at  their  faults,  let  us  at  least  discern  and  eulogise  their 
virtues.  In  this  matter  they  exhibit  far  more  of  the  spirit  of  Jesus 
than  we  are  accustomed  to  give  them  credit  for.  They  have  well 
learned  their  lesson  of  obedience,  alike  to  the  mysterious  dispensa- 
tions of  Providence  and  the  arbitrary  and  oppressive  decrees  of 
society.  AYhat  a  miserable,  narrow,  effete  theology  is  that,  Avhich 
misreads,  warps,  distorts  this  simple  precept  of  Jesus,  overlays  it 
with  dogmas  and  mystical  interpretations,  blinds  our  eyes  to  living- 
exemplifications  of  the  spirit  he  inculcated  and  commended,  and 
would,  if  it  could,  persuade  those  who  through  such  meekness  and 
lowliness  of  heart  have  found  rest  to  their  souls,  that  they  are  aliens 
from  the  Son  of  man,  and  can  never  approach  him,  or  be  acceptable 
in  his  sight,  except  through  sacraments,  priestly  teaching  and  ahsolu- 
tion,  prayers  and  creeds  and  church-membership  ! 

The  following  incident  is  recorded  by  Luke.     One  of  those  Jewish 
doctors  '  whose  especial  office  it  v,as  to  teach  the  law  '  (Alford),  took 


PART  II.]         A    STUDY    OF   THE    FOUR    GOSFELS.  97 

upon  him  to  put  a  qiK'stion  to  Jcsiis.     '  And  l)eliold,  a  certain  lawyer  lOLnkcao 
stood  up  and  tempted  him,  saying,  IMaster  (or,  Teaclier),  what  shall  I 
do  to  inherit  eternal  life  ? '     'IMie  question  may  be  taken  to  assume  a 
connection  between   the  mode  of  life  here  and  its  continuance  in 
another  world,  amounting:  in  fact  to  this  :  How  must  I  live,  or  what 
must  I  do,  on  earth,  in  order  to  secure  endless  existence  hereafter  ? 
However  u'cnerally  that  interpretation  may  be  adopted,  as  though  it 
were  a  matter  of  course,  open  to  no  argument  or  question,  the  literal 
rendering  of  Dr.  Young  puts  us  on  the  track  of  finding  another  and 
and  very  different  sense  :  '  Teacher,  on  doing  what — shall   I  inherit 
agc-during  life  ?  '     Death,  considered  as  the  penalty  of  transgression, 
what  is  it  but  the  premature  ending  of  the  natural  'age'  of  man  ? 
The  ]n-omise  of  the  law  was  '  life,'  not  'age-during  life,'  for  that  was 
lost  to  mankind  through  the  tirst  transgression  :  and  the  law  exacted 
no  penalty  and  conveyed  no  promise  outside  the  limit  of  our  earthly 
existence.      Therefore   the    question    propounded   l)y    this    Jewish 
lawyer  was  natural  and  momentous,  '  On  doing  what — shall  I  inherit 
age-dnring  life  ?  '     As  far  as  can  be  ascertained  from  Scripture,  the 
doctrine  of  age-dnring  life  was  first  revealed  by  Jesus  ;  it  was  the 
])eculiar  feature  of  his  teaching.     The  lawyer,  consciously  or  un- 
consciously, was  quoting  the  words  and  adopting  the  ideas  of  Jesus  : 
'and   age-during  life  shall  inherit.'     'Who  may  not  receive  back  lo  Mat.  ^o 
manifold  more  in  this  time,  and  in  the  coming  age  age-during  life  '  is  lukc  so 
(Young).     Jesus  had,  indeed,  proclaimed  this  age-during  life  as  the 
gift  of  God  granted  to  men  through  him.     '  He  who  is  hearing  my  5Joim-j4 
word,   and    believing    Him    who    sent    me,   hath  life  age-during.' 
'  Verily,  verily,  I   say  to  you,  He  who  is  believing  in  me,  hath  life  « Jfi'"  *" 
:ige-during.'     Possibly  the  lawyer  anticipated  that  his  question  would 
lead  to  a  repetition  by  Jesus  of  such  declarations,  for  the  words 
'  stood  up  and  tempted  him  '  imply  an  intention  of  entangling  Jesus 
ill  some  argument  or  accusation.     But  Jesus  simply  answered  the 
(juestion  by  putting  another.     What  did  this  lawyer  hold  to  be  the 
sum  and  sul)stauce  of  the  law  ?     '  And  he  said  unto  him,  What  is  lo  Luke  26 
written  in  the  law  ?  how  readest  thou  ? '     The  lawyer  was  ready 
with  his  summary  of  human  duties.     '  And  he  answering  said,  Thou      ,,    27 
shalt  love  the  Lord  thy  God  with  (Gr.  from)  *  all  thy  heart,  and 
with  all  thy  soul,  and  with  all  thy  strength,  and  with  all  thy  mind  ; 
and  thy  neighbour  as  thyself.'     Jesus  accepted  that  as  a  true  and 
fall  epitome  of  the  divine  law.     '  And  he  said  unto  him,  Thou  hast      „    28 
answered  right.'     And  the  connection  between  life  and  duty  was  of 
the  closest  kind.     'This  do,  and  thou  shalt  live.'     The  perpetuation      „    28 
of  life  must  needs  depend  upon  observance  of  God's  decrees  :  therein 
consists  the  harmony  of  our  nature  with  his  will  and  with  the  sur- 
roundings, physical  and  moral,  individual  and  social,  amidst  which 
he  has  placed  us.     This  is  the  case  both  in  this  world  and  the  next. 
It  applies  equally  to  that  broken  span  of  life  inherited  from  the  first 
Adam,  who  '  is  of  the  earth,  earthy,' and  to  that  age-during  life  15 1.  Cor.  47 
which  comes  to  us  through  the  second  Adam,  who  is  '  the  Lord  from 
heaven '  (A.  V.).     There  must  be  an  incorporation  of    our  nature 
with  his  :  '  He  who  is  eating  my  flesh,  and  drinking  my  blood,  hatli  o  joim  54 

*  The  note  '  (Gr.  from) '  should  refer  also  to  the  following  thrje  instances  of  the 
word  '  with.' 


98  TEE    KING    AND    THE    KTNQDOM:  [part  ii. 

life  age-during.'  (Young).  His  spirit  of  obedieuce  is  the  spirit  of 
life  within  ns  ;  his  spirit  of  life  within  us  is  the  spirit  of  obedience. 
There  is  no  self-contradiction  in  Jesus  when  at  one  time  he  eays, 

14  John  10  '  This  do,  and  thou  shalt  live,'  and  at  another  time,  '  Because  I  live, 
ye  shall  live  also.'  And  the  life  he  promises  is  age-durinji,  not  end- 
less. God  has  given  to  every  living  creature  an  appointed  time,  or 
'  age.'  All  that  can  be  hoped  is,  that  eacli  shall  reach  the  utmost 
limit  of  existence.  An  immortality  of  this  earthly  life  would  be  a 
curse,  and  not  a  blessing.  An  immortality  of  changeless  being  here- 
after may  be  equally  undesirable  and  unattainable.     Having  gained 

.3  piiii.  10      Christ,  we  trust  to  '  know  him,  and  the  power  of  his  resurrection.' 
Our  hope  should  not  rest  in  the  ceaseless  perpetuation  of  one  change- 
less mode  of  existence,  but  in  the  assured  triumph  over  death,  when- 
„    11      ever  and  wherever  it  may  come,  that  we  '  may  attain  unto  the  resur- 
rection from  the  dead.'     Jesus  was  made  our  high  priest,  after  the 

7  Hei).  iG  order  of  Melchizedek,  '  after  the  power  of  an  endless  (Gr.  indissoluble) 
life.'      That  did  not  save  him  from  death  upon  the  cross,  but  it 

10  John  17  ensured  his  resurrection:  *I  lay  down  my  life,  that  I  may  take  it 
agaiu.' 

There  was  nothing  in  the  reply  of  Jesus  Avhich  the  lawyer  could 
lay  hold  upon  to  criticise  and  question ;  but  that  he  might  not 
appear  abashed  or  foiled  in  his  purpose,  he  broached  another  topic 

10  Lukc!  i;9  of  enquiry.  '  But  he,  desiring  to  justify  himself,  said  unto  Jesus, 
And  who  is  my  neighbour  ?  '  Alford  supposes,  '  that  to  justify 
himself  may  mean,  to  get  himself  out  of  the  difficulty,  viz. :  by 
throwing  on  Jesus  the  definition  of  one's  neighhour,  which  was  very 
narrowly  and  technically  interpreted  among  the  Jews,  excludiug 
Samaritans  and  Gentiles.'  Jesus  entered  upon  no  verbal  or  tech- 
nical argument,  but  ihustrated  the  matter  by  drawing  a  picture 
which  exhibited  the  working  of  the  spirit  of  exclusiveness  and  the 
„  30  spirit  of  neighbourliness.  '  Jesus  made  answer  and  said,  A  certain 
man  was  going  down  from  Jerusalem  to  Jericho  ;  and  he  fell  among 
robbers,  who  both  stripped  him  and  beat  him,  and  departed,  leaving 
him  half  dead.'  K  ever  one  human  being  stood  in  need  of  assistance 
from  another,  that  poor  traveller  did.  An  opportunity  for  help  soon 
arose.  A  priest  happened  to  be  going  that  road.  He  caught  sight 
of  the  halt-murdered  man,  and  at  once — what  ?  Simply  and  deli- 
„  :u  berately  avoided  him.  'And  by  chance  a  certain  priest  was  going 
down  that  way :  and  when  he  saw  him,  he  passed  by  on  the  other 
side.'  Afterwards  a  Levite  came  upon  the  scene,  and  he,  all  uncon- 
02  sciously,  imitated  the  conduct  of  his  spiritual  superior  :  'And  in  like 
manner  a  Levite  also,  when  he  came  to  the  place,  and  saw  him, 
passed  by  on  the  other  side.'  A  passing  glance  was  enough  for  both 
these  men.  Fortunately  they  were  followed  by  a  man  whose  brotherly 
„  C.3  sympathies  were  not  extinct.  '  But  a  certain  Samaritan,  as  he 
journeyed,  came  where  he  was  :  and  when  he  saw  him,  he  was  moved 
with  compassion.'  All  the  help  within  his  poAver  he  hastened  to 
:;;4  render  :  '  and  came  to  him,  and  bound  up  his  wounds,  pouring  on 
them  oil  and  wine.'  The  Revisers  agree  with  Young  in  adopting  the 
word  '  on '  instead  of '  in,'  but  Tischendorf  retains  '  in.'  Either  word 
will  suit,  now  the  term  '  beat '  is  used  instead  of  '  wounded ' :  they 
were  surface-wounds,  not  sword-cuts.  The  difficulty  now  was  how  to 
remove  the  patient.    His  rescuer  managed  to  place  him  on  the  saddle 


PART  II.]         .4    STUDY    OF    THE    FOUR    GOSPELS.  99 

of  the  animal  he  himself  had  been  riding,  led  him  to  an  inn,  and 
there  saw  that  all  his  wants  were  provided  for.  'And  he  set  him  on  ioluUos* 
his  own  beast,  and  brought  him  to  an  inn,  and  took  care  of  him.' 
After  a  night's  rest  the  invalid  was  sufficiently  restored  to  admit  of 
his  kind  friend  pursning  his  journey.  Having  bestowed  what  care 
and  time  were  requisite,  he  must  needs  provide  money,  and  that  he 
did  in  the  most  delicate  way,  not  troubhng  the  sufferer  about  the 
matter,  but  placing  what  he  thought  would  be  sufficient,  or  perchance 
it  was  the  ntmost  he  could  spare,  in  the  hands  of  the  innkeeper,  whom 
he  begged  to  see  to  the  stranger's  wants,  at  the  same  time  making 
himself  responsible  for  any  further  expenditure  which  might  be  found 
necessary.  'And  on  the  morrow  he  took  out  two  pence  (denaries —  „  35 
Young)  and  gave  tliem  to  the  host,  and  said,  Take  care  of  him  ;  and 
Avhatsoever  thou  spendest  more,  I,  when  I  come  back  again,  will  repay 
thee.'  The  Eevisers,  following  the  two  oldest  MSS.,  have  omitted 
after  '  morrow '  the  words  '  when  he  departed.' 

Why  did  the  Samaritan  do  so  much,  and  those  two  others  abso- 
lutely nothing  ?  Were  the  priest  and  the  Levite  totally  destitute  of 
the  commonest  feelings  of  hnmanity  ?  The  object  of  Jesus  in  deli- 
vering the  parable  was  not  to  portray  Jewish  culpability,  or  to  exalt 
heathen  benevolence.  The  question  it  dealt  with  was  that  of  neigh- 
bourslnp,  and  Jesus  brought  the  lesson  to  bear  on  tliat  one  point. 
He  assumed  that  one  of  the  travellers  was  a  neighbour  of  the 
wounded  man,  and  he  asked  the  laAvyer  to  guess  which  one  of  them 
it  was.  *  Which  of  these  three,  thinkest  tiiou,  proved  neiglil)Our  „  :5t5 
unto  him  that  fell  among  the  robbers  ? '  The  Authorised  Version 
has  '  was  neighbour,'  which  Tischendorf  retains.  Young,  agreeing 
■\vith  the  '  Englishman's  Greek  New  Testament,'  renders,  '  to  have 
been  neighbour.'  Alford  did  not  alter  the  text  of  the  Authorised 
Version,  although  he  quoted  this  from  Wordsworth  :  '  Observe,  that 
the  iras  neigldiour,  is  literally  hccame  neighbour.'  Luther  renders  : 
'  Welcher  diinkte  dich,  der  unter  diesen  dreyen  der  Niichste  sey 
gewesen  dem,  der  unter  die  ^lorder  gefallen  war  ? '  which  may  be 
taken  to  correspond  with  Young.  The  Revisers'  word  '  proved,' 
which  is  rather  a  gloss  than  a  translation,  and  which  is  stronger  than 
Wordsworth's  '  became,'  may  therefore  be  disregarded.  The  lawyer 
expressed  his  opinion  that  the  one  who  showed  kindness  to  the 
wounded  man  must  have  been  his  neighbour.  'And  he  said.  He  that  „  37 
■shewed  mercy  on  him,'  which  means  that  they  Avere  both  Samaritans. 
That  explained  everything,  according  to  the  teaching  and  spirit  of 
.Jewish  exclusiveness.  The  priest  and  Levite  were  not  necessarily 
■callous  to  human  suffering,  but  they  were  imbued  with  caste  pre- 
judices. So  widespread  and  deep  was  the  feeling  of  national  aversion, 
that  the  Samaritan  woman  at  the  well  expressed  astonishment  that 
Jesus,  being  a  Jew,  should  hnve  condescended  to  ask  a  drink  of  water 
at  her  hands.  A  special  vision  from  heaven  was  needed  to  teach 
even  the  apostle  Peter,  after  years  of  intercourse  with  Jesus,  that  he 
'  should  not  call  any  man  common  or  unclean.'  Those  engaged  in  10  Acts  l^s 
sacerdotal  functions  would  naturally  be  most  punctilious  in  avoiding 
any  suspicion  of  ceremonial  uncleanness.  To  have  given  any  help  to 
the  wounded  man,  would  have  brought  the  priest  and  Levite  into 
■close  personal  contact  with  him.  They  could  not  venture  to  approach 
.and  touch  a  Samaritan  !     Xot  until  one  of  his  own  nation  came  up, 


li)  Lulu-  3T 


100  THE   KING    AND    THE    KINGDOM:  [part  ii. 

could  any  be  found  who  Avonld  regard  and  help  him  as  a  '  neighbour.' 
The  parable  vras  a  protest  against  the  spirit  of  bigotry  and  intole- 
rance, showing  how  hideous  and  hateful  were  self-righteousness  and 
arrogance,  how  inimical  to  the  best  instincts  and  interests  of  humanity. 
There  must  be  uo  narrow-mindedness  in  settling  an  answer  to  the 
question,  '  Who  is  my  neighbour  ? '  Here  was  a  Jewish  lawyer  ex- 
ercising his  intellect  in  verbalisms  and  quibblings  about  the  im2:)orb 
and  bearing  of  the  simple  divine  command,  '  Thou  shalt  love  thy 
neighbour  as  thyself.'  It  had  been  so  expounded  as  to  extinguisli 
the  spirit  of  brotherhood  appertaining  to  our  common  nature,  and  a 
better  and  broader  interpretation  of  the  law  was  needed  than  the  one 
in  vogue.  There  may  have  been  a  touch  of  indignation  and  im- 
patience in  the  words  wath  which  Jesus  dismissed  this  lawyer,  with 
his  questioning  and  questionable  subtleties.  'And  Jesus  said  unto 
him,  Go,  and  do  thou  likewise.'  The  light  of  nature  was  a  sufficient 
guide  to  the  meaning  of  the  grand  law  of  human  brotherhood.  There 
was  no  need  to  ask,  '  Who  is  my  neighbour  ? '  A  heart  open  to  com- 
passion, a  soul  overflowing  Avith  love,  would  answer  unhesitatingly 
and  peremptorily,  Who  is  7wf  my  neighbour  ?  The  love  of  man  to 
man  must  free  itself  from  all  cant  of  creeds,  prejudices  of  caste,  and 
national  antipathies.  On  the  common  ground  of  humanity,  Jew  and 
Samaritan  must  not  only  meet  but  shake  hands  as  '  neighbours.' 

In  the  course  of  journeying  with  his  disciples,  Jesus  reached  a 
village,  the  name  of  which  is  not  here  recorded.  The  mention  of  it 
by  Luke  as  '  a  certain  village '  leads  to  the  inference  that  the  docu- 
ments in  his  possession  did  not  enable  him  to  give  the  exact  locality. 
'  Now  as  they  went  on  their  way,  he  entered  into  a  certain  village.* 
There  he  was  hospita))ly  lodged  and  entertained  in  a  lady's  house-. 
'  And  a  certain  woman  named  Martha  received  him  into  her  house." 
The  expression  seems  to  signify  more  than  a  visit  of  a  few  hours 
made  in  passing.  A  sister  of  Martha  eagerly  availed  herself  of  the 
opportunity  of  listening  to  the  discourse  of  Jesus.  '  And  she  had  a 
sister  called  Mary,  which  also  sat  at  the  Lord's  feet,  and  heard  his 
word.'  The  Revisers  have  followed  '  many  ancient  authorities ' 
(Alford)  in  replacing  '  Jesus '  by  '  Ijord.'  The  word  is  '  Lord  '  in  the 
oldest  MS.,  and  in  the  Vatican  MS.  it  had  been  altered  to  '  Lord '  by 
a  later  hand.  It  would  seem  that  Jesus  was  allowed  to  carry  on  his 
teaching  in  the  house  itself.  But  the  mistress  of  the  house  was  nob 
at  leisure  to  attend  these  gatherings.  She  was  bent  on  honouring  her 
guest  wdth  festal  entertainments,  and  devoted  herself  with  much 
energy  and  anxiety  to  the  task.  '  But  Martha  was  cumbered  (Gr: 
distracted)  al)Out  much  serving.'  Herself  overburdened,  she  disap- 
proved of  her  sister's  negligence.  It  must  needs  be  supposed  that 
Martha  did  not  scruple  to  express  herself  freely  on  the  point  to  Mary^ 
before  presuming  to  trouble  Jesus  with  her  domestic  grievance.  But 
Mary  could  not  tear  herself  fi-om  the  Teacher's  feet,  and  her  offended 
sister,  overwrought  by  the  pressure  of  her  well-meant,  hospitable 
cares,  and  sensitive  upon  the  point  even  to  petulance,  ventured  tO' 
lay  her  complaint  before  Jesus,  and  actually  solicited  his  interference^ 
'  And  she  came  up  to  him  (having  stood  by  him — Young),  and  said. 
Lord  (Sir — Young),  dost  thou  not  care  that  my  sister  did  leave  me 
to  serve  alone  ?  bid  her  therefore  that  she  help  me.'     Such  a  crisis,. 


PART  11.]         ,4    STUDY    OF    THE    FOUR    GOSPELS.  101 

arisinj^  out  of  such  sweet  foibles  of  character  in  these  two  lovin<;- 
women,  was  not  a  little  embarrassing.  Jesus  disposed  (^f  it  with 
extreme  delicacy  and  courtesy.  C^alled  upon  to  express  his  wish  in 
the  matter,  he  did  so  with  friendly  sincerity  and  candour.  He  must 
needs  incline  to  one  side  or  the  other,  and  he  did  not  hesitate  to  plead 
fur  freedom  of  judgment  and  action  on  behalf  of  JMary.  The  conten- 
tion between  the  sisters  was  as  to  the  most  fitting-  and  welcome  mode 
of  showing  their  esteem  for  hirn.  Jesus  was  not  unmindful  of  all 
that  Martha  had  done  and  ^vas  doiug  for  his  comfort  and  entcrtain- 
meut,  aud  he  had  perceived  her  anxiety  and  her  ettbrts  branching 
out  in  many  directions.  '  But  the  Lord  answered  aud  said  unto  her,  n)  i-nkr  u 
Martha,  Martha,  tiiou  art  anxious  and  troubled  about  many  things.' 
Here  again  the  Revisers  have  altered  '  Jesus '  to  '  Lord.'  It  stands 
'  Lord  '  in  the  Sinaitic,  which  is  the  oldest  MS.,  and  in  the  Vatican 
]\LS.  the  original  reading  was  '  Lord,'  the  word  having  been  altered 
by  a  later  hand.  So  in  the  Vatican  ]\IS.  in  ^■ersc  31)  '  Lord  '  had  been 
inserted,  and  in  verse  41  erased.  Such  modifications  are  suggestive. 
On  this  particular  point  it  must  not  be  assumed  tliat  antiquity  is  an 
evidence  of  accuracy  :  a  feeling  of  reverence  might  naturally  seem  to 
justify  the  copying  of  the  word  '  Lord '  from  an  older  MS.,  but  few 
probably  would  have  ventured  to  dispense  with  '  Lord  '  and  insert 

*  Jesus,'  except  npon  overwhelming  evidence. 

That  Jesus  should  have  twice  uttered  the  name  of  INIartha,  may  be 
taken  to  indicate  either  that  her  impetuosity  of  speech  and  spirit 
needed  that  emphatic  call  upon  her  attention,  or  that  Jesus  dwelt 
upon  the  word  for  the  purpose  of  emphasising  its  meaning,  which  is 

*  stirriug  up,  bitter,  provoking.'  In  eithei*  case  the  repetition  was  a 
kind  of  gentle  reproof.  Nor  was  Jesus  able  to  say  that  he  greatly 
appreciated  everything  his  hostess,  in  her  kindness  and  large-hearted- 
ness,  was  so  busy  and  earnest  about.  On  the  contrary,  his  wants 
A\ere  few,  and  he  would  willingly  have  them  considered  all  merged 

and  suunned  up  in  one.    '  But  one  thing  is  needful.'     The  two  oldest      „     4:j 
MSS.  read,  '  But  there  is  need  of  few  things  or  of  one,'  and  the 
Eevisers  note  that  many  ancient  authorities  have,  '  But  few  things 
are  needful,  or  one.'     And  that  one  was  the  very  thing  which  Mary 
had  chosen  to  supply  him  with.     '  For  Mary  hath  chosen  the  good      -     ^~ 
part.'     The  best  mark  of  respect  which  could  be  shown  to  him,  the 
service  which  above  all  else  he  desired  and  appreciated,  was  this 
simple  and  rapt  attention  to  the  truths  he  taught.     To  aught  else  he 
was  comparatively  indifferent.     How  then   could   he   comply  with 
Martha's  request,  and  send  away  Mary  from  her  seat  at  his  feet  to 
attend  to  mere  household  matters  ?     It  was  due  from  him  rather  to 
justify  her  presence,  and  to  forbid  her  absence  :  '  which  shall  not  be      „    42 
taken  away  from  her.' 

This  charming  episode  in  the  gospel  narrative  carries  its  lesson  on 
the  face  of  it.  If  we  must  needs  make  a  practical  application  of  it 
to  ourselves  or  others,  let  us  not  go  beyond  its  plain  significance  and 
bearing.  \^q  can  show  Jesus  no  greater  honour,  we  can  give  him  no 
greater  pleasure,  than  that  of  sitting  at  his  feet  to  listen  aud  ponder 
his  teaching.  Ten  thousand  instructors  in  Christ  cannot  improve 
the  truths  enfolded  in  his  simplest  sayings.  But  we  must  go  him 
direct,  hear  him  ourselves,  exercise  our  own  judgment  on  his  doctrine, 
and  seek  to  grasp  the  real  import  and  spirit  of  his  words.     Trans- 


102  THE   KING    AND    THE   KINGDOM:  [paet  ii. 

lators,  interpreters,  commentators,  there  must  needs  be  :  let  ns  recog- 
nise the  vahie  of  their  labours,  and  lean  upon  their  learning,  but  only 
that  we  may  through  tliem  '  learn  Christ.'  To  do  that  effectually, 
we  must  shut  out  from  our  ears  all  other  voices.  He  speaks  to  us  as 
to  men  capable  of  judging  what  he  says.  We  are  surrounded  by  an 
atmosphere  of  so-called  Christian  thought,  which  was  never  generated 
by  the  breath  of  Jesus.  Discordant  sounds  impinge  upon  our  ears, 
and  we  are  directed  hither  and  thither  for  the  right  creed  and  the 
true  faith.  There  are  still  teachers  who  presume  to  claim  apostolical 
descent  and  authority,  others  who  deem  themselves  divinely  ap- 
pointed through  laying  on  of  hands,  others  with  lower  pretensions 
based  on  congregational  election,  others  self-elected,  all  perchance 
equally  self-confident.  What  a  Babel  of  tongues,  what  a  diversity 
of  notions,  what  a  contrariety  of  dogmas,  what  a  trampling  of 
theological  feet,  Avhat  an  opening  and  shutting,  none  too  gently,  of 
theological  doors  !  It  is  all  well  meant,  designed  and  carried  out 
with  a  view  to  the  Master's  honour :  but  are  we  sure  that  he  attaches 
any  importance  to  the  modes  of  serving  him  which  have  been  devised 
according  to  the  rules  and  precepts  of  men  ?  We  are  bidden  to  meet 
him  in  this  way  and  that  way,  through  one  sacrament  or  another 
sacrament,  through  prayers,  through  praises,  through  preachings, 
through  fastings,  through  devout  meditations,  in  church-goings,  in 
Bible-readings,  in  creeds  and  confessions,  in  priestly  counsel  and 
absolution.  If  we  are  competent  to  exercise  ourselves  in  such  doc- 
trines and  rituals,  surely  we  are  equally  competent  to  grasp  the 
meaning  of  the  teaching  of  Jesus  by  taking  his  own  Avords  direct 
from  his  own  lips.  Earnest,  honest,  independent  thought,  the  exer- 
cise of  a  sound,  unfettered  judgment  with  respect  to  the  gospel 
record, — that  is  the  great  want  of  the  age,  the  one  thing  needed  for 
a  better  knowledge  of  Jesus  and  of  his  salvation.  His  teachings 
have  been  not  only  examined  under  every  possible  light,  Ijut  as  it 
were — analysed,  their  component  parts  first  separated  and  then 
worked  up  anew  by  preachers  and  commentators  into  an  amalgam  of 
their  own,  supposed  to  be  his,  and  vaunted  as  the  true  essence  of 
Christianity.  Take,  as  an  example  of  the  confusion  and  error 
incident  to  this  disregard  of  the  plain,  primary  sense,  the  oft-quoted 
words,  '  but  one  thing  is  needful.'  Jesus  used  them  with  reference 
to  the  attention  shown  to  himself  and  his  words  by  Mary  as  com- 
pared Avith  Martha's  hospitable  cares  on  his  behalf.  Dean  Alford 
applies  it  to  ourselves,  saying :  '  The  yood  jjoriion  is  the  one  thing 
which  is  needful — see  John  vi.  53 — the  feeding  on  the  hread  of  life 
lij  faith.''  The  idea  is  reversed,  and  an  extraneous  idea  inserted 
from  another  discourse  of  Jesus.  And  we  know  how  generally 
preachers  follow  in  the  wake  of  Alford  when  dealing  with  this  text. 

As  Jesus  was  walking  with  his  disciples  he  caught  sight  in  passing 
of  a  man  who  was  blind  and  had  been  so  from  birth,  '  And  as  he 
passed  by,  he  saw  a  man  blind  from  his  birth.'  The  disciples,  sharing 
the  Jewish  idea  that  every  infirmity  was  the  punishment  of  sin 
(Alford),  asked  Jesus  with  whom  in  this  case  the  transgression 
rested.  '  And  his  disciples  asked  him,  saying.  Rabbi,  who  did  sin, 
this  man  or  his  parents,  that  he  should  be  born  blind  ? '  AYe  know, 
as  a  matter  of  fact,  that  the  sins  of  parents  are  often  visited  upon 


PART  II.]         A    m'UDY    OF    THE    FOUR    GOSPELS.  103 

their  cliiUlreu  ;  but  whether  to  this  extent,  the  disciples  were  in 
doubt,  or  whether  even  the  blindness  might  not  be  a  judg-nient  upon 
the  man  himself.  There  are  sins  of  ignorance,  unconsciously  com- 
mitted, secret  faults  as  well  as  presumptuous  transgressions.  Could 
the  possibility  of  such  involuntary  sin  extend  to  an  unborn  child  ? 
Alford's  note  is  as  follows  :  '  How  could  Iw  himself  have  sinned  before 
his  birth  ?  Beza  and  Grotius  refer  the  question  to  the  doctrine  of 
the  transmigration  of  souls,  that  he  may  have  sinned  in  a  former 
state  of  existence  ;  this  howe^•er  is  disproved  by  the  consideration 
adduced  by  Lightfoot,  that  the  Pharisees  believed  that  the  good 
souls  onhj  passed  into  other  bodies,  which  would  exclude  this  case. 
Lightfoot.  Liickc  and  Meyer  refer  it  to  the  possibility  of  sin  in  the 
vonib ;  Tholuck  to  predestinated  sin,  punished  by  anticipation; 
I)e  "Wette  to  the  general  doctrine  of  the  pre-cxistence  of  souls,  which 
prevailed  both  among  the  Rabbis  and  Alexandrians :  ste  Wisdom 
viii.  11),  1^0.'  How  much,  or  how  little,  or  whether  anything  at  all 
of  such  ideas  was  in  the  minds  of  the  disciples,  we  know  not.  They 
could  have  had  no  settled  opinion  upon  the  subject.  Their  question 
was  a  mere  guess,  and  Jesus  put  it  aside  as  being  either  false  or 
inapplicable.  '  Jesus  answered,  Neither  did  this  man  sin,  nor  his  o  John  '.i 
parents  :  but  that  the  works  of  God  should  be  made  manifest  in 
him.'  Alford  suggests  that  to  get  at  the  sense  we  must  supply  here 
after  '  his  parents,'  that  he  should  he  horn  blind ;  and  also  after  *  but/ 
Jie  teas  lorn  blind.  Samuel  Sharpe  supplies  the  supposed  omission 
by  rendering  :  'Neither  did  this  man  sin,  nor  his  parents;  but  it 
was  that  the  works  of  God  should  be  shown  in  him.'  But  where  he 
inserts  a  semi-colon,  and  the  Revisers  a  colon,  Tischendorf  and  Young 
place  a  comma.  Much  depends  on  punctuation  and  pause.  If, 
instead  of  assuming  a  hiatus,  we  read  the  sentence  without  a  break, 
the  seuse  is  modified  :  '  Neither  did  this  man  sin  nor  his  parents  but 
that  the  works  of  God  should  be  made  manifest  in  him  : '  that  is, 
whether  the  sin  lay  with  him  or  them,  its  only  effect  would  be  to 
render  him  an  object  of  divine  power  and  compassion.  It  seems 
more  reasonable  to  take  that  as  the  proper  sense  of  the  passage,  than 
to  assume,  as  otherwise  we  must,  that  Jesus  regarded  the  man  as 
having  been  doomed  to  blindness  from  birth  in  order  to  give  oppor- 
tunity for  a  miraculous  restoration  of  his  sight  at  last.  It  w^as 
enough  to  know  that  wherever  sin  and  infirmity  were  found  to  exist, 
there  was  a  call  and  an  occasion  for  the  exercise  of  the  power  which 
had  been  divinely  given.  '  We  must  work  the  works  of  him  that  ,,  4 
sent  me.'  Following  the  two  oldest  MS8.  the  Revisers  have  replaced 
'  I '  by  '  we.'  Not  only  did  Jesus  humbly  describe  himself  as  the 
messenger  of  God,  bat  he  associated  others  with  him  in  that 
capacity,  having  imparted  to  them  the  same  miraculous  powers. 
And  e(iually  as  regarded  himself  and  them,  such  works  must  be  per- 
formed whenever  the  occasion  presented  itself  :  '  while  it  is  day  :  the  „  ^ 
night  Cometh,  when  no  man  can  work.'  That  Jesus  was  thinking  of 
the  brevity  of  life's  term  of  labour,  and  of  his  approaching  departure 
from  the  world,  is  evident  from  his  next  remark  :  'When  I  am  in  „  o 
the  world,  I  am  the  light  of  the  world.'  The  Authorised  Version 
l)egins  with  the  words  'As  long  as,'  which  the  Revisers  have  replaced 
by  '  when,'  therein  agreeing  with  Tischendorf!,  Alford  and  Young. 
Samuel  Sharpe  puts  '  while.'     The  sense  of  the  three  forms  appears 


104  THE    KING    AND    THE    KINGDOM:  [part  ii. 

to  be  identical.  No  ordinary  man  could  have  presumed  to  utter  such 
words.  We  can  but  walk  by  the  light  which  (iod  vonchsafes  us. 
'  Light,  more  light,'  is  the  cry  of  the  wisest.  But  Jesus  declares 
himself  the  very  sun  of  the  firmament,  the  daylight  of  the  world. 
And  having  made  that  astounding  assertion,  he  proceeded  to  deal 
with  the  case  of  physical  blindness  which  had  suggested  the  saying. 
But  not  in  the  way  we  should  have  expected  ;  not  by  a  word,  or  a 
touch,  as  had  been  his  habit  in  other  instances.  Once  he  had 
restored  sight  to  two  blind  men  who  expressed  belief  in  his  power,  by 

!)Mat.  27  touching  their  eyes,  saying,  'according  to  j'our  faith  be  it  done  unto 
you.'     The  same  method  of  cure  was  adopted  with  the  two  blind 

20  Mat.  34     bcggars  of  Jericho,  who  called  upon  him  as  '  son  of  David.'      Jn 

,s  Mark 23-25  another  instance  Jesus  spat  on  the  eyes,  put  his  hands  on  them,  and 
restored  the  sight  gradually.  In  this  case  of  blindness  from  birth, 
Jesus  used  other  means.  He  spat  on  the  ground,  kneaded  the 
moistened  earth  into  clay,  and  with  that  as  a  plaster  smeared  the 

II  John  0  eyes.  '  When  he  had  thus  spoken,  he  spat  on  the  ground,  and  made 
clay  of  the  spittle,  and  anointed  his  eyes  with  the  clay  (or,  and  with 
the  clay  thereof  anointed  his  eyes).'  The  Revisers  have  followed  the 
two  oldest  MSS.  by  reading  '  his  eyes  '  instead  of  '  the  eyes  of  the 
bhnd  man.'  Having  done  that  much,  Jesus  called  the  man's  energy 
and  faith  into  action  by  bidding  him  go  to  a  certain  pool  and  there 
„  7  wash  off  the  clay:  'and  said  unto  him,  Gro,  wash  in  the  pool  of 
Siloam  (which  is  by  interpretation,  Sent).'  There  is  no  ground  for 
supposing  that  interpretation  to  have  been  mentioned  by  Jesus.  The 
only  doubt  is  as  to  whether  the  remark  was  thrown  in  by  the  evan- 
gelist or  by  a  copyist.  Alford  says  :  '  The  reason  of  this  derivation 
being  stated  has  been  much  doubted.  Some  consider  the  words  to 
have  been  inserted  as  an  early  gloss  of  some  allegorical  interpreter. 
But  there  is  no  external  authority  for  this  supposition.'  The  man 
carried  out  the  directions  of  Jesus,  and  thereupon  received  sight. 
,.  7  '  He  went  away,  therefore,  and  washed,  and  came  seeing.'  Alford 
comments  thus  on  the  miracle  :  '  The  value  especially  of  the  fasthvj 
saliva,  in  cases  of  disorders  of  the  eyes,  was  well  known  to  antiquity. 
In  the  accounts  of  the  restoring  of  a  blind  man  to  sight  attributed 
to  Vespasian,  the  use  of  this  remedy  occurs.  The  use  of  clay  also 
for  healing  the  eyes  was  not  unknown.  No  rule  can  be  laid  down 
which  our  Lord  may  seem  to  have  observed,  as  to  using,  or  dispensing 
with,  the  ordinary  human  means  of  healing.  He  himself  determined, 
by  considerations  which  are  hidden  from  us.'  We  cannot  but  wonder 
at  the  extremely  low  ground  here  taken  by  Alford.  What  proper 
analogy  or  comparison  can  there  be  between  any  common  mode  of 
dealing  with  diseases  of  the  eye,  and  the  astounding  marvel  of  giving 
sight  to  one  born  blind  ?  However,  in  the  next  sentence  Alford  sets 
aside  his  own  idea,  for  he  adds  :  '  Whatever  the  means  used,  the 
healing  was  not  in  them,  but  in  Him  alone.'  That  is  going  to  the 
contrary  extreme.  We  are  not  justified  in  assuming  that  any  means 
adopted  by  Jesus  were  superfluous.  Is  it  to  be  supposed  that  he 
would  have  acted  as  he  did  in  this  case,  without  any  reason  or 
necessity  for  so  doing  ?  His  methods  of  cure  are  seen  to  vary : 
because  we  cannot  say  why  or  wherefore,  are  we  at  liberty  to  infer 
that  they  had  nothing  to  do  with  the  result,  that  '  the  healing- 
was  not  in  tJiem,  but  in  him  alone  ? '     On  the  contrary,  we  may  feel 


PAKT  II.]         A    STUDY    OF   THE    FOUR    GOSFELH.  105 

confident  that  Jesus  did  nothinf,^  in  vain,  and  that  lie  would  not  have 
condescended  to  make  a  parade  of  means  which  were  not  essential 
adjuncts  to  the  cure. 

The  man's  neiyhbonrs,  and  those  who  had  been  accustomed  to  see 
him  seated  to  solicit  alms,  could  not  but  eM(juirc  whether  this  was  the 
same  person.  '  The  nei.i>-hbours  therefore,  and  they  which  saw  him  afore-  d  .Joim  ,s 
time,  that  he  was  a  beggar,  said,  Is  not  this  he  that  sat  and  begged  ?' 
The  Revisers,  following  the  three  oldest  M88.,  have  altered  the  word 
■*  blind  '  to  '  a  beggar.'  The  transformation  was  so  great,  that  con- 
siderable doubt  existed  as  to  the  man'a  identity.  '  Others  said,  It  is  „  '•) 
he  :  others  said,  Xo,  l)Ut  he  is  like  him.'  The  passage  has  been 
istrengthened  by  inserting  the  words,  '  No,  but,'  to  agree  with  the  two 
■oldest  MSS.  The  man's  own  assurance  was  forthcoming  to  convince 
his  questioners.  '  He  said,  I  am  he.'  All  this  seems  very  natural,  ,,  a 
when  we  consider  the  marvellous  change  which  had  been  wrought  in 
his  condition.  Imagine  what  it  must  have  been  to  him  to  open  his 
eyes  for  the  first  time  upon  this  wonderful  world  :  to  see  the  sky  and 
clouds,  the  earth,  the  fields,  the  grass,  the  flowers,  the  glorious  setting 
and  rising  of  the  sun,  the  moon  '  Avalking  in  brightness,'  and  all  the 
stars  of  the  firmament,  the  running  stream  and  the  outspread  lake, 
the  trees  and  shrubs  waving  in  the  wind,  the  happy  birds  flying  to 
and  fro,  the  patient  cattle,  the  domestic  animals ;  to  watch  the  faces, 
the  movements,  the  bright  and  varied  dresses  of  his  fellow  creatures, 
the  smiles  upon  the  children's  faces,  the  play  of  passion  and  of 
character  in  adults  :  to  gaze  upon  the  houses,  the  streets,  the  shops, 
the  bustle  and  business  of  mankind  :  what  a  changed  world  it  was  to 
him  !  What  wonder  that  he  himself  should  be  changed,  almost 
beyond  recognition  ?  The  fixed,  stohd  gaze  of  the  sightless  eyes  was 
gone  ;  instead  of  groping  with  a  stick,  he  Avalked  self-contidently  and 
nimbly  ;  the  glow  of  happiness  and  hope  was  on  his  countenance  ; 
he  was  the  same,  yet  not  the  same,  so  greatly  changed  that  his  own 
assertion  might  well  be  needed  to  convince  those  who  stood  in  doubt 
of  his  identity.  Then  followed  the  natural  question  as  to  the  means 
whei-eby  he  had  received  sight.  '  They  said  therefore  unto  him,  How  „  lo 
then  were  thine  eyes  opened?'  He  answered  that  the  man  Jesus, 
whose  name  was  so  well  known,  had  in  a  very  simpf^,  way  brought 
that  aliout.  *  He  answered.  The  man  that  is  called  Jesus  made  clay,  „  u 
and  anointed  mine  eyes,  and  said  unto  me,  Go  to  Siloam,  and  wash  : 
so  I  went  away  aud  washed,  and  I  received  sight.'  Impelled  by  a 
feeling  of  curiosity,  the  hearers  enquired  where  Jesus  was  to  be  found  ; 
but  the  man  himself  did  not  know.  '  And  they  said  unto  him,  >.  12 
Where  is  he  ?     He  saith,  I  know  not.' 

The  report  of  such  a  miracle  could  not  fail  to  spread.  Not  only 
did  it  reach  the  ears  of  the  Pharisees,  but  the  man  himself  was  pro- 
duced to  them  in  evidence.  '  They  briug  to  the  Pharisees  him  that  ,.  is 
aforetime  was  blind,'  Another  fact  came  out  in  connection  with  it : 
that  the  miracle  had  been  wrought  on  a  sabbath.  '  Now  it  was  the  „  u 
sabbath  on  the  day  when  Jesus  made  the  clay,  and  opened  his  eyes.' 
We  know  the  intense  scrupulousness  of  the  Pharisees  with  respect  to 
the  observance  of  the  sabbath.  Jesus  had  jDreviously  been  charged 
with  breaking  the  divine  law  by  infringing  the  sacred  rest  of  the 
day.  Probably  he  anticijiated  a  renewal  of  that  charge,  and  delibe- 
rately resolved  to  set  it  at  defiance,  when  he  prefaced  his  labour  of 


106  THE    KING    AND    THE    KINGDOM:  [part  ii. 

It  joim4  love  with  the  words,  '  'V\"e  must  work  the  works  of  Jiim  that  sent  me, 
w'hile  it  is  day.'  The  Pharisees  questioned  the  man  closely  as  to  the 
15  manner  in  which  the  miracle  had  been  performed.  '  Again  therefore 
the  Pharisees  also  asked  him  how  ho  received  his  sifiht.  And  he 
said  unto  them,  He  put  clay  upon  mine  eyes,  and  I  washed,  and  do 
see.'  That  was  sufficient,  in  the  minds  of  some,  to  coudemn  Jesus  as 
a  sabbath-breaker,  a  man  therefore  who  could  not  ]30ssibly  be  charg-ed 
],;  with  a  divine  mission.  '  Some  therefore  of  the  Pharisees  said,  This 
man  is  not  from  God,  because  be  keepeth  not  the  sabbath.'  But 
others  shrank  from  acceptino-  and  thus  applying  that  I'orm  of  argu- 
ment :  they  were  disposed  rather  to  reverse  it,  and  instead  of  saying. 
This  man  has  broken  the  sabbath,  and  is  therefore  a  transgressoi',  to 
say,  This  man  has  wrought  beneficent  miracles,  and  therefore  cannot 
be  a  sinner.     No  agreement  was  possible  between  the  holders  of  such 

„  16  opposite  views.  '  But  others  said,  How  can  a  man  that  is  a  sinner 
do  such  signs  ?  And  there  was  a  division  among  them.'  With  the 
view  of  ascertaining  what  would  be  the  natural  and  unbiassed  opinion 
of  the  character  of  Jesus,  apart  from  theological  preconceptions  and 

„  17  arguments,  the  man  himself  was  questioned  on  the  point.  '  They  say 
therefore  unto  the  blind  man  again.  What  sayest  thou  of  him,  in  that 
he  opened  thine  eyes  ? '  The  answer  was  given  unhesitatingly. 
17  '  And  he  said,  He  is  a  prophet.'  Then  the  idea  was  broached — alas  I 
for  the  baseless  prejudices  and  false  suspicions  generated  by  partisan- 
ship— that  the  whole  alfair  was  pure  deception  from  beginning  to 
end,  that  the  man  had  not  been  born  blind,  and  had  not  received  his 
sight,  but  was  an  emissary  of  Jesus,  probably  hired  to  cry  him  up  as 
a  prophet.  Ptesolved  to  sift  the  matter  to  the  bottom,  the  parents  of 
the  man  were  summoned,  and  not  until  their  evidence  had  been  taken 
did  these  doubters  and  traducers  relinquish  their  theory  about  coUu- 

„  18,  ID  sion  and  deception.  '  The  Jews  therefore  did  not  believe  concerning 
him,  that  he  had  been  blind,  and  had  received  his  sight,  until  they 
called  the  parents  of  him  that  had  received  his  sight,  and  asked  them, 
saying.  Is  this  your  son,  who  ye  say,  was  born  blind  ?  how  then  doth 
he  now  see  ?  ' 

It  will  be  observed  that  the  evangelist  attributes  this  incredulity  to 
'the  Jews,'  whereas  he  had  previously  spoken,  in  verses  13,  15  and 
10,  of 'the  Pharisees.'  Why  does  he  make  that  distinction  ?  This 
opens  out  an  important  question,  which  it  is  advisable  to  examine 
thoroughly  and  dispose  of  once  for  all.  When  we  speak  or  read  of 
the  Jews' or  the  Jewish  people,  we  are  accustomed  to  take  it  for 
granted  that  the  term  includes  all  Israelites.  That  is  not  always  the 
case.  The  word  '  Jews,'  in  strictness,  denotes  the  inhabitants  of 
Jewry  or  Judaea,  and  in  every  instance  in  which  this  evangelist  uses 

1  John  v.>     the  exjiression  we  find  it  bears  that  sense.     '  The  Jews  sent  unto  him 

from  Jerusalem  priests  and  Levites.'  Nathanael  did  not  greet  Jesus- 
.,    411      as  king  of  the  Jews,  but  said,  '  Thou  art  the  king  of  Israel.'     The 

2  John  G       mention  of  '  the  Jews'  manner  of  purifying,'  may  signify  that  '  in 

Cana  of  Galilee '  this  traditional  custom  was  observed  as  in  Judsea. 
„    13      'The   passover  of   the   Jews  was  at  hand,  and  Jesus  went   up   to 

Jerusalem,'  the  capital  of  Judtea.     As  the  feast  could  only  be  kept 

IS      there,  it  was  natural  to  call  it  '  the  passover  of  the  Jews.'    '  The  Jew.> 

]',    20     answered  and  said  unto  him.'     '  The  Jews  therefore  said.  Forty  ancL 

six  years  was  this  temple  in  building.'     There   is  no  mention   or 


PART  II.]         A    STUDY    OF   THE    FOUR    GOSPELS.  107 

thon<ilit  of  Gentiles,  but  naturally  and  as  a  matter  of  course  the 
dwellers  of  Jerusalem  and  the  neiglil)ourhood  are  designated  by  the 
enstomary  title  of '  Jews.'     'A  man  of  the  Pharisees,  named  Nico-sjoimi 
demus,  a  ruler  of  the  Jews.'     At  that  time  the  land  of  Canaan  was 
divided  into  four  provinces,  Galilee  and  Penea,  Ni)rth  Peraia,  Samaria 
and  .luda^a,  under  four  different  Roman  governors.     The  rnlership  of 
Nicodemus,  whatever  its  character,  must  certainly  have  been  restricted 
to  the  iidiabitants  of  Judiea,  that  is  to  '  the  Jews.'     Jesus  when 
speaking  of  the  whole  nation,  irrespective  of  locality,  uses  the  term 
'  Israel  : '  '  Art  thou  the  teacher  of  Israel  ? '     '  There  arose  therefore      „     lo 
a  questioning  on  the  part  of  John's  disciples  with  a  Jew  about  puri-      ,,    ^-'5 
tying,' — not  a  Jew  as  distinguished  from  a  Gentile,  but  in  connection 
with  the  mention  of '  the  land  of  Judaea,'  a  Judiean,  not  one  of  those 
from 'beyond  Jordan.'    'For  Jews  have  no  dealings  with  Samaritans.'      „    2c. 
This  passage  is  not  in  the  oldest  MS.,  and  the  Pevisers  note  that  4  Joim  '.< 
'some  ancient  authorities  omit'  it.     If  inserted  by  the  evangelist  we 
must  take  it  in  the  same  sense  as  elsewhere.     Samaria  lay  between 
Judiea,  the  country  of  the  Jews,  and  Galilee,  which  was  also  inhabited 
by  men  of  the  same  nation  and  religion,  although  not  '  Jews.'     It  is 
quite  possible  that  the  rancour  was  chiefly  if  not  entirely  between  the 
Samaritans  and  the  Juda?ans  or  '  Jews  '  only.     This  seems  probable, 
from  the  fact  that  Jesus  was  once  refused  admittance  into  '  a  village  o  Luke  52 
of  the  Samaritans,'  not  because  he  and  his  disciples  were  recognised 
as  Israelites,  but  because  it  was  evident  that  they  were  journeying 
towards  Jerusalem  :  the  Samaritans  would  hold  no  intercourse  with 
those  who  were  about  to  associate  with  their  enemies  '  the  Jews.' 
'Salvation  is  from  the  Jews.'     This  follows  immediately  upon  the  4 joim .'2 
mention  of  Jerusalem,  which  the  Samaritan  woman  understood  to  be 
the  only  place,  according  to  Jewish  ideas,  in  which  God  must  be 
worshipped.     '  He  went  forth  from  thence  into  Galilee.    For  Jesus      „    43- 
himself  testified,  that  a  prophet  hath  no  honour  in  his  own  country. 
So  when  he  came  into  (4alilee,  the  Galileans  received  him,  having 
seen  all  the  things  that  he  did  in  Jerusalem  at  the  feast :  for  they 
also  went  unto  the  feast.'    Here  the  distinction  is  plain  between  Jews 
and  Galileans.     Jesus  was  a  Jew,  having  been  'born  in  Bethlehem  of  2 Mat.  1 
Judaea.'     His   own   countrymen,  the   Jews,  rejected   him,  but   the 
Galileans  received  him.     .Tews  and  Galileans  were  of  the  same  reli- 
gion, both  Israelites.     'There  was  a  feast  of  the  Jews;  and  Jesus  jjoimi 
went  up  to  Jerusalem.'     '  So  the  Jews  said  unto  him  that  was  cured,      „    10 
It  is  the  sabbath,  it  is  not  lawful  for  thee  to  take  up  thy  bed.'     '  For      „    10 
this  cause  did  the  Jews  persecute  Jesus,  because  he  did  these  things 
on  the  sabbath,'     '  The  Jews  sought  the  more  to  kill  him.'     It  "is      „    is 
now  abundantly  evident  that  the  constant  mention  of  '  the  Jews  '  by 
the  evangelist  is  altogether  apart  from  any  thought  of  heathens  or 
Gentiles.     By  'Jews'  he  means  the  inhabitants  of  Jerusalem  and 
of  Juda?a  generally,  as  distinguished  from  Galileans  and  other  Israel- 
ites, and  he  shows  how  ))itter  and  constant  was  the  opposition  of  the 
Jews   to   Jesus,  compelling   him   sometimes  to  fly  irom  the  south 
country  of  Judrea,  and  to  confine  his  ministry  chiefly  to  the  north 
country  of  Galilee.    '  Xow  the  passover,  the  feast  of  the  Jews,  was  at  c  Joim  4 
hand.'     '  The   Jews   therefore   murmured  concerning   him.'     '  The      ,.    41 
Jews  therefore  strove  one  with  another.'     There  is  nothing  in  these      ..     &- 
passages  to  modify  the  previous  conclusions.     The  following  passages 


108  THE    KING    AND    THE    KINiWOM:  [part  ii. 

7j,)h,i  1-3    corroborate  them.     'And  after  these  tliinii's  .lesus  walked  in  Galilee  : 

for   he   would   not   walk   in   Judsea   (Jewry — Authorisei   Version), 

because  the  Jews  sought  to  kill  him.     Now  the  feast  of  the  Jews,  the 

feast  of  tabernacles,  Avas  at  hand.     His  brethren  therefore  said  unt(j 

"    11      him,  Depart  hence,  and  go  into  Judgea.'    '  The  Jews  therefore  sought 

>.    13      him  at  the  feast.'     '  No  man  spake  openly  of  him  for  fear  of  the 

"    15      Jews.'     '  The  Jews  therefore  marvelled,  saying,  How  knoweth  this 

man  letters,  having  never  learned  ? '     The  e\'angelist  now  makes  a 

still  closer  distinction.     Inhabitants  of  Jerusalem  were  necessarily 

Jews,  but  all  Jews  would  not  be  inhabitants  of  Jerusalem  ;  so  he 

explains,  '  Some  therefore  of  them  of  Jerusalem  said,  Is  not  this  he 

whom  they  seek  to  kill  ?  '     And  now  the  evangelist,  referring  for  the 

,,    35     tirst  time  to  heathens,  reports  :  '  The  Jews  therefore   said   among 

themselves.  Whither  will  this  man  go  that  we  shall  not  find  him  r ' 

will  he  go  unto  the  Dis})ersion  among  (Gr.  of)  the  Greeks,  and  teach 

the  Greeks  ? '     He  might  go  to  those  who  were  not  Jews  or  Gentiles, 

.s John 22      iQ  j^ijg  Galileans,  but  in  Galilee  they  could  find  him.     'The  Jews 

therefore  said.  Will  he  kill  himself,  that  he  saith,  Whither  I  go,  ye 

"    31     cannot   come  ? '     '  Jesus   therefore   said  to  those   Jews   which  had 

"     -i^     believed   him.'     'The  Jews  answered   and  said   unto  him,   Say  we 

not  well  that  thou  art  a  Samaritan,  and  hast  a  devil  (Gr.  demon)  ? ' 

„    52     'The  Jews  said  unto  him,  Now  we  know  that  thou  hast  a  devil  (Gr. 

"     ^~     demon).'     '  The  Jews  therefore  said  unto  him.  Thou  art  not  yet  fifty 

iijuiin  IS      years  old,  and  hast  thou  seen  Abraham  ?  '     '  The  Jews  therefore  did 

not  belie\'e  concerning  him,  that  he  had  been  blind,  and  had  received 

his  sight.'     That  is  the  passage  which  suggested  this  investigation. 

Possibly  all  the  Pharisees  were  not  Jews  ;  at  all  events,  the  evangehst 

here  brings  out  the  fiict  that  these  objectors  wei'e  Jews,  not  from 

"    2-     Galilee  or  elsewhere  than  Judaea.     'They  feared  the  Jews:  for  the 

Jews  had  agreed  already,  that  if  any  man  should  confess  him  to  be 

io.j,)iiii  111    the  Clirist,  he  should  be  put  out  of  the  synagogue.'     'There  arose 

„    23, 24  again  a  division  among  the  Jews  because  of  these  words.'     'Jesus 

Avas  walking  in  the  temple,  in  Solomon's  porch.     The  Jews  therefore 

„    31     came  round  about  him.'     '  The  Jews  took  up  stones  again  to  stone 

..    33     him.'    '  The  Jews  answered  him.  For  a  good  work  we  stone  thee  not.' 

It   were   absurd   to   suppose   that   in   these   passages  the  Jews  are 

11  j.iiiii  7, 8  mentioned    in    contradistinction   to    Gentiles.      'He   saith   to   the 

disciples,  Let  us  go  into  Judfca  again.     The  disciples  say  unto  him, 

Rabbi,  the  Jews  v>-ere  but  now  seeking  to  stone  thee  ;  and  goest  thou 

thither  again  ? '    Nothing  could  be  plainer  than  that  the  term  '  Jews ' 

is  applied  and  restricted  to  the  dwellers  in  Judaga,  the  countrymen 

„     i!>     aud  co-religionists  of  Jesus.    '  Many  of  the  Jews  had  come  to  ]\Iartha 

„    31     and  Mary.'     '  The  Jews  then  which  were  with  her  in  the  house.'     Of 

course  Gentiles  could  not  have  been  present :  no  thought  of  such  a 

„    33     thing  was  in  the  writer's  mind.     'And  the  Jews  also  weeping  (Gr. 

»     3ij     wailing).'     '  The   Jews  therefore  said,  Behold  how  he  loved   him.' 

„     45     '  Many  therefore  of  the  Jews  .  .  believed  on  him.'     '  Jesus  therefore 

>.    54     walked  no  more  openly  among  the  Jews,  but  departed  thence  into  the 

country  near  to  the  wilderness,  into  a  city  called  Ephraim  :  and  there 

he  tarried  with  his  disciples  : '  of  course  among  men  of  their  own 

„     55     nation.     '  Now  the  passover  of  the  Jews  was  at  liand  :  and  many 

12  John  \i     went  up  to  Jerusalem.'     '  The  common  people  therefore  of  the  Jews 
„     11      learned  that  he  was  there.'     '  Many  of   the  Jews  went  away,  and 


PART  11.]         A    STi'DY    OF    THE    FOUR    GOSPELS.  109 

believed  on  Jesus.'     'As  I  said  unto  the  Jews,  Whither  I  go,  yeisjoimss 
cannot  come  ;  so  now  I  say  unto  you.'     The  inference  is  plain  :  the 
discijiles  to  whom  Jesus  spoke  thus  were  not  Jews,  at  least  not  all 
Jews.     *  And  the  otlicers  of  the  Jews  seized  Jesus.'     '  Now  ('aiaj)has  isjuim  12 
was  he  which  gave  counsel  to  the  Jews.'     '  I  ever  taught  in  the      „    14 
synagogues  (dr.  synagogue),  and  in  the  temple,  where  all  the  Jews     ..    -'o 
come  together.'     '  The  Jews  said  unto  him,  It  is  not  lawful  for  us     ..    si 
to   put   any  man    to  death.'     'Art   thou  the  king   of  the  Jews?'      ..    33 
'Pilate  auswered.  Am  I  a  Jew?     Thine  own  nation  and  tlie  chief     ..    3r> 
priests  delivered  thee  unto  me.'    It  is  obvious  from  this,  that  the  term 
'  Jew  '  did  not  extend  to  Gentiles  living  in  Judtea.     '  That  I  sliould      »    '■^'^ 
not  be  delivered  to  the  Jews.'     '  He  went  out  again  unto  the  Jews,'      >,    ss 
'  Will  ye  therefore  that  I  release  unto  you  the  king  of  the  Jews  ?,'      ,.     39 
'Hail  King  of  the  Jews.'     'The  Jews  answered  him.'     'The  Jews  lujohn  3,12 
cried  out.'     '  He  said  unto  the  Jews.'     'Jesus  of  Nazareth,  the  king      ,,    u,  n' 
of  the  Jews.'     'This  title  therefore  read  many  of  the  Jews.'     'The      „     -20 
chief  priests  of  the  Jews.'     'Write  not  the  king  of  the  Jews,  but,      „     -21 
that  he  said,  I  am  king  of  the  Jews.'     '  The  Jews  therefore,  because      „    31 
it  was  the  preparation."     '  Secretly  for  fear  of  the  Jews.'     'As  the      .-    3s, -10 
custom  of  the  Jews  is  to  bury  : '  probably  it  was  not  customary  thus 
to  embalm  the  dead  in  Galilee  and  elsewhere.     '  Because  of  the  Jews'      >,     -12 
Preparation.' 

So  much  for  John's  gospel.     Turning  now  to  Matthew  we  find  the 
following  }>assages.     '  Wlicre  is  he  that  is  born  King  of  the  Jews  ?  '  -  ^i^it-  2 
was  the  question  of  the  Magi,  and  under  that  title  Jesus  at  last  was 
crucified  ;  but  the  prophecy  quoted  took  a  wider  view  :  '  which  shall      „     r. 
he  shepherd   of   my  people  Israel.'     'And  came  into  the  land  of     „    21, -'2 
Israel.      But    when   he   heard   that   Archelaus   was   reigning  over 
Judtea  .  .  he  withdrew  into  the  parts  of  Galilee.'     The  distinction 
l)etween  the  land  of  Israel  as  a  whole,  and  Judtea  as  a  part  of  Israel, 
is  here  unmistakable.     '  I  have  not  found  so  great  faith,  no,  not  in  sMat.  10 
Israel.'     '  It  was  never  so  seen  in  Israel.'     '  Go  rather  to  the  lost  '■>  'sun.  m 
sheep  of  the  house  of  Israel.'     '  They  glorified  the  (Jod  of  Israel.' I5  j|j|t;  31 
'Judging  the  twelve  tribes  of  Israel.'      'Tell  ye  the  daughter  of  i'-' -^'i"- 1'^ 
Zion,  Behold,  thy  King  cometh  unto  thee;'  but  it  was  as  '  Son  of  "  ',/''!i' 
David,'  who  ruled  over  Israel.     '  Art  thou  the  King  of  the  Jews  ?  '  -"  ■*'■'*•  ^■- 
Pilate  was  merely  '  Governor  of  Judsea,'  and  therefore  could  only  3  Luke  1 
take  cognizance  of  a  claim  to  kingship  over  '  Jews  ; '  but  the  chief 
priests,  the  scribes  and  elders,  mocking  said  :  '  He  is  King  of  Israel.'  -"  ^^^^-  ■^- 

Mark,  besides  these  titles  affixed  to  Jesus  by  Pilate  and  the  elders,  15  Mark  2, 
supplies  only  one  other  passage  bearing  on  the  subject.     'For  the     ^"'^|;^32 
Pharisees,  and  all  the  Jews,  except  they  wash  their  hands  diligently  t  Mark  3' 
(or,  up  to  the  elbow)  eat  not.'     This  is  preceded  by  the  observation, 
'  And  there  are  gathered  together  unto  him  the  Pharisees,  and  certain  ~  Mark  1,2 
of  the  scribes,  which  had  come  from  Jerusalem,  and  had  seen  that 
some  of  his  disciples  ate  their  bread  with  defiled,  that  is,  unwashen, 
hands.'     Oliviously  there  was  not  the  same  strict  observance  of  '  the 
tradition  of  the  elders  '  among  the  Israelites  generally,  as  prevailed 
among  '  all  the  Jews.' 

Luke  contains  the  following  passages.     '  IMany  of  the  children  of  ^  ^"'^°  ^'^ 
Israel  shall  he  turn  to  the  Lord  their  God.'     'The  Lord  God  shall      "    ^-'^" 
give  unto  him  the  throne  of  his  father  David  ;  and  he  shall  reign 
over  the  house  of  Jacob  for  ever  (Gr.  unto  the  ages).'     '  He  hath      >>    Hcs. 


no  THE   KING    AND    THE    KINGDOM:  [pakt  ii. 

holpcu  Israel  his  servant.'     'Blessed  be  the  Lord,  the  God  of  Israel.' 

1  Luke  GO     '  Aiicj  liath  raised  up  a  horn  of  salvation  for  us  in  the  house  of  his 
.,     so     servant  David.'    '  Till  the  day  of  his  showing  unto  Israel.'    '  Lookiug 

■2  Lnko  25     for   the   consolatiou   of  Israel.'     '  The  glory  of  thy  people  Israel.' 
,,    32, o-i'For  the  falling  and  rising  up  of   many  in   Israel.'     'I   have   not 

7  Luke  10     found  SO  great  faith,  no,  not  in  Israel.'     Pilate's  title  is  of  course 

23  Luke_3,^   the  Same,  but  the  hope  of  the  disciples  had  embraced  not  Jews  only 
''"  but  all  Israelites:    'But   we   hoped   that   it  was  he  which  should 

2 J  Luke  21    redeem  Israel.' 

It  was  the  more  important  to  undertake  this  exhaustive  examina- 
tion of  the  Gospels,  because  tlii'oughout  the  Acts  the  term  '  Jews  '  is 
used  in  a  wider  sense.  "We  there  read  of  '  Jews  '  at  Jerusalem  and 
Damascus,  of  Grecian  Jews,  Jews  of  Phoenicia,  Cyprus,  Antioch, 
Salamis,  Antioch  of  Pisidia,  Iconium,  Philippi,  Thessalonica,  Beroea, 
Athens,    Corinth,   Ephesus,   Achaia,   in   Greece,   Asia,    Rome,   and 

21  Acts  0  '  throughout  the  world.'  Xor  can  it  be  supposed  that  these  are  called 
Jews  as  being  of  the  tribe  of  Judah,  for  in  several  passages  '  Jews 

21  Acts  21  and  Greeks '  are  spoken  of,  and  in  one  place  '  Jews  among  the 
Gentiles,'  the  title  of  '  Jews '  being  used  then  in  the  same  broad 
sense  as  now.  So  we  find  the  word  '  Jews '  used  in  two  ways  : 
throughout  the  Gospels  generally,  and  in  John's  Gospel  especially,  as 
denoting  the  Judreans  or  Southern  Israelites,  as  distinguished  from 
the  Israelites  of  Galilee  and  elsewhere  ;  and  throughout  the  Acts  as 
embracing  all  Israelites  in  opposition  to  Gentiles.  Xor  is  this  to  be 
wondered  at.  The  Gospels  record  the  life  and  labours  of  Jesus 
among  his  own  people  only,  as  stated  by  himself :  '  I  am  not  sent 
but  to  the  lost  sheep  of  the  house  of  Israel  : '  therefore  when  one 
section  of  the  people  is  alluded  to,  it  is  to  distinguish  them  i'rom 
the  other  section,  not  from  men  of  other  nations  ;  just  as  in  a 
history  of  the  English  people  the  constant  repetition  of  the  word 
'  English '  might  signify  the  exclusion  of  Scotch  and  AVelsh,  with- 
out thought  or  reference  to  Continental  nations.  Unfortunately 
Mr.  Matthew  Arnold,  taking  up  the  popular  and  not  the  evangelist's 
sense  of  the  term  '  Jews,'  has  thence  drawn  the  conclusion  that 
John's  Gospel  could  not  have  been  written  by  John,  nor  by  a  Jew. 
Here  is  his  argument.*  '  Now,  a  plain  reader  will  certainly,  when 
his  attention  is  called  to  the  matter,  be  struck  with  the  extraordinary 
way  in  which  the  writer  of  the  Fourth  Gospel,  whom  we  suppose 
a  Jew,  speaks  of  his  brother  Jews.  We  do  not  mean  that  he  speaks 
of  them  with  blame  and  detestation  ;  this  we  could  quite  understand. 
But  he  speaks  as  if  they  and  their  usages  belonged  to  another 
race  from  himself, — to  another  world.  The  waterpots  of  Cana  are 
set  "  after  the  manner  of  the  purifijing  of  the  Jeics ;  "  "  there  arose  a 
question  between  some  of  John's  disciples  and  a  Jew  about  purify- 
ing ;. "  "  now  the  Jews'  Passover  Avas  nigh  at  hand  ; "  "  there  they 
laid  Jesus,  because  of  the  Preparation  of  the  Jews^  Xo  other 
Evangelist  speaks  in  this  manner.  It  seems  almost  impossible  to 
think  that  a  Jew  born  and  bred, — a  man  like  the  Apostle  John, — 
could  ever  have  come  to  speak  so.  Granted  that  he  was  settled  at 
Ephesus  when  he  produced  his  Gospel,  granted  that  he  wrote  in 
Greek,  wrote  for  Greeks  ;  still  he  could  never,  surely,  have  brought 

*  -'God  and  the  Bible.     The  fourth  Gospel  from  without." 


PART  II.]         .4    STUDY    OF    THE    FOUR    GOSPELS.  Ill 

himself  to  speak  of  the  Jews  and  of  Jewisli  things  in  this  fasliion  ! 
His  lips  and  his  pen  would  have  refused  to  form  such  strange  ex[)res- 
sions,  in  whate\-cr  disposition  he  may  have  written  ;  nature  and  habit 
would  have  been  too  much  for  him.  A  Jew  talking  of  i/te  Jews'' 
Passover,  and  of  a  dispute  of  some  of  John's  disciples  icilh  a  Jew 
about  purifi/iiuj?  It  is  like  an  Englishman  writing  of  the  Derby  as 
flie  EiKjlish  people's  JJcrbij,  or  talking  of  a  dispute  between  some  of 
J\lr.  Cobden's  disciples  and  an  Enijlislnnan  aboiil  free-trade.  An 
Englishman  would  never  speak  so.'  Mr.  ]Matthew  Arnold  is  not 
quite  correct  in  saying,  '  Xo  other  Evangelist  speaks  in  this  manner,' 
as  will  be  seen  on  referring  to  7  Mark  1 — 3.  No  other  Evangelist 
needed  to  speak  in  that  manner,  inasmuch  as  only  John  souglit  to 
bring  out  so  prominently  and  methodically  the  fact,  that  the  whole 
opposition  to  Jesus,  from  first  to  last,  was  not  national  but  local,  had 
no  existence  in  Galilee,  but  sprang  from  Judtea,  and  was  confined  to 
those  who  were  distinguished  by  their  own  countrymen  as  '  Jews,' 

The  examination  of  the  parents  confirmed  the  account  previously 
given.  They  identified  their  son,  and  attested  the  fact  that  he 
was  born  blind.  *  His  parents  answered  and  said,  AVc  know  that  this  '•'  J"''»  -o 
is  our  son,  and  that  he  was  born  blind.'  Beyond  this  they  could  say 
nothing.  '  But  how  he  now  seeth,  we  know  not ;  or  who  opened  his  »  -i 
eyes,  we  knou'  not.'  That  information  could  be  olitained  from  the 
son  himself,  who  was  of  an  age  competent  to  give  reliable  testimony  ; 
'  Ask  him  :  he  is  of  age  ;  he  shall  speak  for  himself.'  From  this  it  >.  -i 
is  to  be  inferred  that  he  Avas  of  youthful  appearance.  The  boon 
Jesus  had  conferred  upon  him  was  all  the  more  to  be  appreciated 
because  he  stood  only  upon  the  threshold  of  manhood,  and  the  gift 
■of  sight  would  prove  a  life-long  blessing.  The  parents  were  the  more 
Teticent  because  they  stood  in  fear  of  the  consequences  which  might 
result  from  any  acknowledgment  of  the  supernatural  ])ower  of  Jesus. 
It  was  known  that  any  confession  of  him  as  Messiah  involved  the 
penalty  of  excommunication.  'These  things  said  his  parents,  because  „  -i-i,: 
they  feared  the  Jews :  for  the  Jews  had  agreed  already  that  if  any 
man  should  confess  him  to  be  Christ,  he  should  be  put  out  of  the 
synagogue.  Therefore  said  his  parents.  He  is  of  age  ;  ask  him.' 
The  man  had  already  owned  to  a  belief  in  Jesus  as  a  prophet.  Even 
that  conception  of  him  these  Jews  would  not  let  pass  without  a  pro- 
test and  a  warning.  So  they  summoned  the  man  again  to  their 
presence,  and  urged  him  to  attribute  his  recovery  from  blindness  to 
Ood  alone,  and  to  take  it  from  them  that  his  visible  Benefactor  was 
the  very  reverse  of  a  proph<it, — actually  a  breaker  of  the  divine  law. 
*  So  they  called  a  second  time  the  man  that  was  blind,  and  said  unto  >,  -m 
him.  Give  glory  to  God  :  we  know  that  this  man  is  a  sinner.'  We 
are  left  to  suppose  that  the  dissentients  from  that  opinion  had  retired 
from  the  council,  leaving  the  bigots  to  take  their  own  course.  As  to 
the  character  of  Jesus  the  man  could  not  profess  to  know  anything  : 
hut  one  thing  he  did  know  for  certain, — that  he  had  been  blind  and 
now  could  see.  '  He  therefore  answered,  AYhether  he  be  a  sinner,  I  ,>  -^ 
know  not :  one  thing  I  know,  that,  whereas  I  was  blind,  now  I  see.' 
They  reminded  him,  in  reply,  that  the  bare  fact  was  not  enough,  but 
that  the  method  of  performing  the  miracle  had  to  be  taken  into 
account.  '  They  said  therefore  unto  him,  What  did  he  to  thee  ?  how  ,.  -" 
opened  he  thine  eyes  ? '     The  man  seemed  to  miss  the  drift  of  their 


112  THE    KING    AND    THE   KINGDOM:  [part  ii. 

iusiimation  ;  the  idea  that  the  act  involved  the  sia  of  sabbath- 
breaking  was  not  in  his  mind  ;  probably  he  was  ignorant  of  the  dis- 
cussion which  had  taken  place  on  that  question,  and  only  knew  that 
as  soon  as  he  had  mentioned  the  fact  about  the  clay  they  paid  no 
more  attention  to  his  words,  and  would  listen  to  no  further  details. 
127  'He  answered  them,  I  told  you  even  now,  and  ye  did  not  hear.' 
The  man  seems  to  have  been  fairly  puzzled,  and  expressed  his 
astonishment,  asking  why  they  wanted  him  to  go  over  the  matter 
again,  having  heard  him  with  impatience  and  comparati\'e  inattention 
before,  and   suggesting,  apparently,  that  no  amount  of  repetition 

2V  would  be  likely  to  convert  them  into  disciples  of  Jesus.  '  AVherefore 
would  ye  hear  it  again  ?  would  ye  also  become  his  disciples  ? ' 
Alford  observes  :  '  This  latter  clause  is  of  course  ironical.'  The  tone 
and  tenor  of  the  man's  replies  and  criticisms  indicate  that  absence  of 
conventional  respect  for  the  council,  the  place,  the  dress  and  rank  of 
the  Pharisees,  which  would  be  natural  and  excusable  in  one  who 
looked  upon  such  things  for  the  first  time.  It  is  an  unconscious 
touch  of  truthfulness  in  the  narrative.  The  very  idea  of  the 
Pharisees  becoming  disciples  of  Jesus  was  dismissed  with  scorn.  Thsy 
replied  disdainfully  that  the  man  himself  appeared  to  be  a  disciple,  but 

28  they  owned  allegiance  to  none  but  IMoses.  '  And  they  reviled  him, 
and  said,  Thou  art  his  disciple,  but  we  are  disciples  of  Moses.' 
About  his  divine  inspiration  there  could  be  no  question,  but  Jesus 

20  was  an  utter  stranger  to  them.  '  We  know  that  God  hath  spoken  by 
Moses  :  but  as  for  this  man,  Ave  know  not  whence  he  is."  The  Kevisers 
have  softened  the  Authorised  Version  by  putting  '  this  man  '  instead 
of  '  this  fellow,'  tlierein  agreeing  with  Alford.  Tischendorf  and 
Young  render  '  this  one.'     That  itself  deserved  to  be  called  a  miracle. 

30  'The  man  answered  and  said  unto  them,  Why,  herein  is  the  marvel, 
that  ye  know  not  whence  he  is,  and  i/et  he  opened  mine  eyes.'  It  was 
an  axiom  of  their  fixith  that  no  sinner  could  gain  the  ear  of  Deity  : 

31  for  that,  it  was  imperative  to  adore  God  and  to  obey  his  will.  '  We 
know  that  God  heareth  not  sinners  :  but  if  any  man  be  a  worshipper 
of  God,  and  do  his  will,  him  he  heareth.'  The  miracle  performed 
was  altogether  without  precedent,  and  taken  by  itself  was  an  irre- 
fragable testimony  that   Jesus  was  divinely  taught  and  authorised. 

32, 33 '  Since  the  world  began  it  was  never  heard  that  any  one  opened  the 
eyes  of  a  man  born  blind.  If  this  man  were  not  from  God,  he  could 
do  nothing.'  The  common-sense,  the  logic,  the  religious  sentiment 
of  the  argument,  were  beyond  refutation.  But  the  man,  ignorant, 
owing  to  his  infirmity,  of  many  social  customs  and  deferences,  had  yet 
to  learn  that  the  Pharisaic  spirit  was  too  proud  to  brook  contradic- 
tion, and  that  the  power  of  authority  was  greater  than  any  force  of 
argument.  All  at  once,  the  evil  spirit  within  these  men  broke 
bounds.  They  resented  as  an  insult  the  attempt  to  convince  them, 
and  scrupled  not  to  pronounce  his  past  blindness  a  brand  of  infamy. 

31  '  They  answered  and  said  unto  him.  Thou  wast  altogether  born  in 
sins,  and  dost  thou  teach  us  ? '  Alford  quotes  the  following  from 
Trench  :  '  They  forget  that  the  two  charges, — one  that  he  had  never 
been  born  blind,  and  so  was  an  impostor, — the  other,  that  he  bore 
the  mark  of  God's  anger  in  a  blindness  that  reached  back  to  his 
birth, — will  not  agree  together.'  This  comment  goes  beyond  the 
narrative.     The  cvangelisj  says  only  that  they  did  not  believe  he  had 


I'.vrtT  11. J         A    STUDY    OF    THE    FOUR    GOSPELS.  113 

1)3011  born  blind  uiifil  they  called  the  imrents.  ^Vc  must  not  clmrge 
Miem  with  deliberate  prevarication.  The  fact  of  blindness  had  been 
|)ro\-ed  :  they  accepted  the  ]iroof,  and  then  presumed  to  regard  the 
infirmity  as  a  divine  judgment.     They  seem  even  to  have  construed 


is  vindication  of  Jesus  as  a  proof  of  discipleship  deserving  the 
t  lircaXened  penalty  of  excommunication,  which  they  ])roceeded  to  inflict 
upon  him.  'And  they  cast  him  out.'  Alford  explains:  'Probably; 
the  first  of  the  thr.'e  stages  of  Jewish  excommunication, — the  being 
shut  out  from  the  synagogue  and  household  for  thirty  days,  but 
without  any  anathema.  The  other  two,  the  repetition  of  the  above, 
aceomoanied  by  a  curse. — and  final  exclusion,  would  be  too  harsh, 
and  perhaps  were  not  in  use  so  early.'  The  sentence  of  exclusion 
passed  npon  the  blind  man  was  infamous  and  cruel.  The  report  of 
it  reached  the  ears  of  Jesus,  who  sought  him  out,  for  the  purpose  of 
U-iving  him  an  opportunity  of  that  discipleship  with  which  he  had 
l)een  charged,  and  for  which  he  was  now  bearing  punishment, 
'.lesus  heard  that  they  had  cast  him  oat,  and  finding  him,  he  said, 
Dost  thoa  believe  on  the  Son  of  God?'  The  expression  of  the 
Ptevisers, 'finding  him,'  must  not  be  taken  to  denote  an  accidental 
meeting.  The  Authorised  version  stands,  '  when  he  had  found  him;' 
'i'ischendorf  and  Alford  have,  '  he  found  him  ;  '  Young  has  '  having 
found  him,' — all  of  which  denote  a  set  purpose  of  seeking.  The 
Revisers  have  inserted  the  note,  '  Many  ancient  authorities  read  the 
Soil  of  man.''  Tischendorf  does  so,  following  the  two  oldest  MSS. 
It  matters  little  wiiich  we  take.  '  Son  of  Ood  '  or  '  Son  of  man,'  for 
the  stress  of  the  question  lay  upon  the  man's  faith  rather  than  upon 
the  nature  of  him  who  was  the  object  of  it.  On  this  latter  point  the 
man  was  absolutely  ignorant,  for  he  did  not  even  understand  who 
was  alluded  to.  '  He  answered  and  said,  And  who  is  he.  Lord  (Sir — 
Young),  that  I  may  believe  on  him  ? '  The  question  had  no  rela- 
tion to  any  article  of  doctrine  or  creed,  but  to  a  living  Person  on 
whom  the  man  could  rely  :  '  believe  on  him  '  must  needs  mean  that, 
and  not  merely  '  believe  something  about  him.'  Jesus  replied  that 
the  person  to  whom  he  alluded  had  been  actually  seen  by  the  man, 
this  man  born  blind  ! — and  heard  by  him,  and  was,  indeed,  the  very 
l)erson  now  speaking  with  him.  '  Jesus  said  unto  him.  Thou  hast 
both  seen  him,  and  he  it  is  that  speaketh  with  thee.'  What  a  revela- 
tion was  that !  "What  adoring  gratitude  must  have  gleamed  in  those 
eyes  which  had  been  so  long  sightless,  as  they  now  gazed  for  the  first 
time  on  him  who  had  opened  them  to  the  light  and  glory  of  the 
world  !  And  to  learn  from  his  own  lips  that  he  was  the  Messiah, 
and  be  invited  to  believe  on  him,  having  already  realized  his  divine 
jiower  and  beneficence  !  AYithout  a  moment's  hesitation  came  the 
answer  and  the  homage.  '  And  he  said,  Lord,  I  believe.  And  he 
worship})ed  him,'  rendered  by  Y'oung  :  '  And  he  said,  I  believe,  Sir. 
and  bowed  before  him.'  What  a  contrast  that  to  the  spirit  and 
demeanour  of  the  Pharisees !  Jesus  in  a  very  solemn  sentence 
expressed  his  sense  of  it.  '  And  Jesus  said.  For  judgement  came  J 
into  this  world,  that  they  which  see  not  may  see  ;  and  that  they 
which  see  may  become  blind."  He  was  not  only  light  to  some,  but 
darkness  to  others.  Xone  could  escape  his  influence,  tind  those  who 
opposed  his  work  and  doctrine  must  needs  have  the  eyes  of  their 
understanding  darkened.     Some  of  the  Pharisees  were  present  when 


314  THE    KING    AND    THE    KINGDOM:  [part  ii. 

tlie  discourse  containinsi-  these  \7orcls  was  delivered.  '  Those  of  the 
Pharisees  whicli  were  with  him  heard  these  things,  and  said  unto 
him,  Are  we  also  blind  ?  '  The  expression  '  these  things,'  rendered 
iu  the  Authorised  Version  '  these  words,'  seems  to  refer  to  some 
special  remarks  made  by  Jesus  on  the  subject.  In  reply  to  their 
question,  he  assured  them  that  blindness  iu  itself  was  no  mark  of  sin, 
but  that  the  power  of  vision,  misused  and  perverted,  was  an  evidence 
of  sin  unrepented  of  and  unremoved.  '  Jesus  said  unto  them,  If  ye 
were  blind,  ye  would  have  no  sin  :  but  now  ye  say.  We  see  :  your 
sin  remaineth.'  This  was  a  most  emphatic  protest  against  their  false 
ideas  and  prejudices.  Jesus  utterly  repudiates  their  expressed 
opinion  that  the  blind  man  was  necessarily  born  in  sin,  and  asserts, 
on  the  contrary,  that  guilt  attached  itself  to  them  Avho  could  see, 
but  who  shut  their  eyes  wilfully  against  truth  and  righteousness. 

There  is  no  very  obvious  connection,  to  say  the  least,  between  what 
precedes  and  the  following  discourses  of  Jesus.  As  was  usual  with 
him  when  uttering  some  solemn  and  important  truth,  he  gave 
emphasis  to  it  by  beginning  with  the  words,  Verily,  verily.  He 
pictured  a  man  entering  into  a  fold  of  sheep,  not  by  the  proper 
entrance,  but  by  climbing  over  at  some  other  place  :  the  act  itself 
was  sufficient  proof  that  he  must  needs  be  bent  on  robbery.  '  Verily, 
verily,  I  say  unto  you,  he  that  cntereth  not  by  the  door  into  the  fold 
of  the  sheep,  but  climbeth  up  some  other  way,  the  same  is  a  thief  and 
a  robber.'  Evidently  Jesus  was  designedly  bringing  a  heavy  charge 
against  somebody.  On  the  other  hand,  the  man  who  was  seen  to  enter 
the  sheepfold  by  the  door,  could  be  no  other  than  the  shepherd. 
'But  he  that  entereth  in  by  the  door  is  the  (or,  a)  shepherd  of  the 
sheep.'  The  Revisers  seem  doubtful  whether  the  article  should  be 
definite  or  indefinite.  Tischendorf  and  Young  omit  it  altogether  : 
'  is  shepherd  of  the  sheep.'  The  doorkeeper  knows  him  and  admits 
him,  and  the  sheep  recognise  his  voice.  '  To  him  the  porter  openeth  ; 
and  the  sheep  hear  his  voice.'  He  has  a  peculiar  call,  whicli  his  own 
sheep  are  accustomed  to  listen  for  and  follow.  '  And  he  calleth  his 
own  sheep  by  name,  and  leadeth  them  out.'  It  seems  to  be  assumed 
that  the  enclosure  contains  various  flocks,  taken  care  of  by  different 
shepherds,  all  of  whom  of  course  would  be  known  to  the  doorkeeper. 
First  of  all,  the  shepherd  has  to  assemble  the  sheep  which  are  under 
his  own  charge  ;  then  he  walks  in  front,  and  the  flock  follows,  guided 
by  his  voice.  '  When  he  hath  put  forth  all  his  own,  he  goeth  before 
them,  and  the  sheep  follow  him  :  for  they  know  his  voice.'  They 
are  safe  therefore  from  being  led  astray.  If  a  stranger  should 
approach,  they  instinctively  avoid  him,  and  the  sound  of  his  unac- 
customed voice,  far  from  enticing  them,  wonldbut  add  to  their  terror, 
'  And  a  stranger  will  they  not  follow,  l)ut  will  floe  from  him  :  for  they 
know  not  the  voice  of  strangers.' 

As  usual,  Jesus  offered  no  explanation  of  the  similitude  he  had  put 
forward.  Doubtless  it  enfolded  important  truths,  but  the  hearers 
were  without  a  clue  to  them.  '  This  parable  (or,  proverb)  spake 
Jesus  unto  them  :  but  they  understood  not  what  things  they  were 
which  he  spake  unto  them.'  Perceiving  their  lack  of  comprehension, 
Jesus  illustrated  his  meaning.  He  took  up  three  points  of  the 
allegory  :  the  door,  the  thief,  the  slicph.crd,  disregarding  as  immaterial 


PART  II.]         A    STUDY    OF    THE    FOUR    GOSPELS.  115 

the  fold  itself  und  the  porter,  but  introducing,^  the  additional  metaphors 
of  a  hirelinn^  and  a  wolf.  He  explained  that  the  door  of  the  slicep 
rc]ii'esented  himself.  'Jesus  therefore  said  unto  them  again.  Verily,  lujoim 
verily,  I  say  unto  you,  I  am  the  door  of  the  slieep.'  Luther  renders 
— freely — '  I  am  the  door  to  i'^^)  the  sheep.'  The  only  access  to  the 
sheep,  the  assembly,  the  flock,  the  churcli,— l-iU  it  what  we  will — of 
Jesus,  is  Jesus  himself.  Xo  man  having  any  legitimate  purpose  can 
attempt  to  a])proaeh  them  otherwise".  AVhoever  would  assume  the 
otliee  of  a  teacher  and  guide  of  men  in  matters  ])ertaining  to  the 
gospel,  must  go  to  them  in  the  spirit  of  Jesus,  preaching  the  truth 
as  it  is  in  him.  Doctrines,  creeds,  ho])es,  fears,  modes  of  worshi]), 
schemes  of  government,  not  prescribed  by  him,  cannot  constitute  his 
gate  of  entrance.  The  Authorised  Version  continues  :  '  All  that  ever 
i-ame  before  me  are  thieves  and  robbers.'  The  word  'ever '  is  omitted 
in  the  Revised  Version  :  'All  that  came  before  me  are  thieves  and  "  ■- 
robbers.'  Young  renders,  "  All,  as  many  as  came  before  me.'  Alford 
says  :  '  I  believe  that  the  right  sense  of  these  words.  All  that  ever 
<:amo  hefore  mr,  has  not  been  apprehended  by  any  of  the  Commen- 
tators. First,  they  can  only  be  honestly  understood  of  time  :  all  who 
came  hefore  me  (not,  without  regard  to  mo,  nor  passimi  hij  me  as  the 
door,  nor  instead  of  me :  iiox  pressijiif  hefore  me,  ch.  v.  7,  which  would 
\\?i\Q.\)KiQn  come,  not  came  :  nor  hefore  talcing  the  trouhte  io  find  me, 
the  door :  nor  any  other  of  the  numerous  shifts  which  ha^•e  been 
adopted).'  Alford  considers  the  reference  to  be  to  the  Devil  'and  all 
his  followers:'  'His  was  the  first  attempt  to  lead  human  nature 
before  Christ  came.'  Tischendorf,  following  the  oldest  MS.,  omits  the 
words  '  before  me  : '  '  All  that  ever  came  are  thieves  and  robbers.' 
.lesus  here,  as  often  elsewhere,  speaks  not  of  himself  as  an  ordinary 
man,  but  as  charged  with  a  divine  mission,  possessing  powers  of  attrac- 
tion and  protection  which  none  elge  could  claim  to  exercise.  His 
object  was  to  found  a  society,  a  church,  an  assembly,  a  flock,  upon  his 
v)\vn  principles,  under  his  own  guidance.  All  previous  attempts  to 
<lominate  large  masses  of  mankind  had  been  dictated  by  selfish 
motives,  by  love  of  pomp  and  power,  by  earthly  ambitions,  and  pre- 
eminence had  lieen  sought  and  gained  through  strife,  war,  bloodshed, 
in  contempt  of  ])ersonal  liberty  and  disregard  of  individual  interests. 
Nations  of  warriors,  slaves,  serfs,  swayed  by  kings  and  conquerors  : 
the  people  existed  for  their  rulers  :  they  fainted  and  were  as  shee]) 
■without  a  shepherd  ;  no  leader  had  risen  up  in  whom  they  could  con- 
iidc  :  'All  that  came  before  me  are  thieves  and  robl)ers  ;  but  the 
«heep  did  not  hear  them.'  Jesus  presents  himself  to  suffering 
humanity  as  '  the  door,'  the  entrance  to  a  place  of  refuge,  rest  and 
safety.  '  I  am  the  door  :  by  me  if  any  man  enter  in,  he  shall  be  ••  ' 
•saved.'  Each  sheep  of  his  fold  is  secure  of  freedom,  under  due 
restraints  of  time  and  prudence,  every  natural  impulse  and  aspira- 
tion being  realised  to  the  utmost  :  '  And  shall  go  in  and  out,  and 
•shall  find  pasture.'' 

There  have  ever  been  those  who  are  ready  and  anxious  to  disturb 
tlie  peace  and  assail  the  liberties  of  mankind.  They  use  and  consume 
tiie  flock  for  their  oavu  base  purposes  ;  disdaining  to  herd  with  them, 
tliey  seek  to  live  upon  them,  and  in  the  pursuit  of  wealth,  luxury, 
supremacy,  are  careless  of  the  social  wrongs  they  inflict  and  the 
misery   and   destruction  which  their  poHcy  entails.      Political  and 


116  THE   KING    AND    THE    KINGDOM:  [part  ii. 

dynastic  ambitions,  perpetuated  from  g-eneration  to  generation,  have 
deluged  the  world  with  blood.  The  race  for  Avealth  has  engendered 
the  grinding  competition  of  commerce,  and  transformed  the  logic  of 
political  economy  into  a  godless  and  inhuman  system  of  oppression, 
reducing  the  wages  of  some  operatives  to  starvation  point,  and 
leaving  the  toiling  masses  to  sink  into  a  slough  of  mental,  moral  and 
physical  degradation.  To  the  authors  of  such  wrongs  and  miseries 
the  words  of  Jesus  apply  :  '  The  thief  cometh  not,  but  that  he  may 
steal,  and  kill,  and  destroy.'  The  frightful  persecutions  which  have 
sprung  from  false  theology  have  been  occasional,  intermittent  :  but  the 
warlike  spirit  has  been  a  constant  scourge,  and  the  worship  of  Mammon 
has  deteriorated  the  life  blood  of  the  community.  Any  exposition  of 
the  words  of  .Jesus  which  overlooks  these  evils,  fails  thereby  to  grasp 
his  spirit  and  apply  his  warning.  The  mission  of  Jesus  to  mankind 
had  the  very  opposite  tendency  and  object.  '  I  came  that  they  may 
have  life,  and  may  have  it  abundantly  (or,  have  abundance).'  He 
brings  no  new  gift  to  men  except  the  gift  of  his  Spirit.  The  heavenly 
Father  has  supplied,  in  the  constitution  of  our  nature  and  by  the 
arrangements  of  the  physical  universe,  all  that  is  needful  for  his 
children's  welfare.  '  Life  age-during  : '  the  promise  of  Jesus  could 
go  no  further.  The  regulation  and  preservation  of  our  lives — that 
was  the  declared  purpose  of  his  coming.  God's  world  overflows  with 
blessings  to  mankind.  There  is  enough  for  all.  and  to  spare,  if  only 
covetousness  Ix-  abolished,  and  replaced  by  the  spirit  of  Christian 
equity. 

The  metaphor  is  now  changed.  Jesus  is  no  longer  the  'door,'  but 
the  '  shepherd.'  lie  presents  himself  under  a  different  figure,  the 
new  aspect  showing  his  willingness  and  abihty  to  meet  the  needs  of 
humanity.  '  I  am  the  good  shepherd.'  In  that  capacity  he  was  pre- 
pared not  only  to  labour  and  watch,  but  to  sacrifice  his  life  for  the 
safety  of  the  flock.  'The  good  shepherd  layeth  down  his  life  for  the 
sheep.'  That  extreme  of  unselfish  devotion  could  exist  only  through 
a  conscious  identity  of  interest.  A  hired  servant  would  do  his  duty 
faithfully  up  to  the  point  of  a  due  regard  for  his  own  safety,  but  at 
the  approach  of  danger  he  would  think  of  himself  rather  than  of  the 
slieep,  esteeming  his  own  life  as  more  precious  than  theirs.  '  He  that 
is  a  hireling,  and  not  a  shepherd,  whose  own  the  sheep  are  not, 
l)eholdeth  the  wolf  coming,  and  leaveth  the  sheep,  and  fleeth.'  He 
escapes,  but  the  flock  suffers,  some  being  devoured  and  all  scattered, 
'  And  the  wolf  snatcheth  them,  and  scattereth  fhon.''  The  result 
might  have  been  foreseen.  The  hireling  cannot  have  the  same 
instinct  of  self-sacrifice  as  the  shepherd  Avho  owns  the  sheep.  '  ffe 
tieeth  because  he  is  a  hireling,  and  careth  not  for  the  sheep.'  Tischen- 
dorf,  without  any  loss  of  clearness,  omits  the  italicised  words  '  them ' 
and  '  he  fleeth,'  inserted  by  the  Revisers.  '  The  sheep '  stands  in  the 
Authorised  Version  after  '  scattereth,'  but  not  in  the  two  oldest  MSS,; 
and  'the  hireling  fleeth'  stands  before  'because,'  but  is  not 
in  the  three  oldest  MSS.,  haying  been  erased  from  the  Vatican  MS. 
by  a  later  hand. 

Jesus  reverts  to  the  intimacy  subsisting  between  a  devoted,  careful 
shepherd  and  the  flock  he  guides  and  guards.  '  I  am  the  good  shep- 
herd :  and  I  know  mine  own,  and  mine  own  know  me.'  The  simile 
does  not  admit  the  idea  of  equal  knowledge  on  both  sides.  The  sheep- 


PAKT  II.]         A    STUDY    OF   THE    FOUR    GOSPELS.  117 

know  the  shepherd  by  his  voice,  but  his  powers  of  discernment  are 
of  a  hij^her  order.  Between  Jesus  and  his  own,  however,  there  is  a 
knowledge  based  upon  intellect  and  -will:  'even  as  tlie  Father  lo John  i- 
knoweth  me,  and  1  know  the  Father.'  Alford  notes  :  '  Beware  of 
rendering  tlie  former  clause  of  verse  15,  as  in  the  Authorised  Version, 
as  an  independent  sentence,  A.s  tni/  Father  kncwetk  me,  even  .so  kitoir 
I  the  Father:  it  is  merely  the  sequel  to  verse  14.'  Tischcndorf 
agrees  with  the  Kevisers.  who  have  adopted  Alford's  view,  which  cor- 
responds also  with  Luther's  version.  Jesus  knew  well  that  the 
tragic  end  of  the  faithful  shejDherd  was  appointed  for  himself.  '  And  ..  i'- 
I  lay  down  my  life  for  the  sheep.'  Yet  in  spite  of  premature  death 
he  looked  forward  to  an  extension  of  his  influence.  '  And  othei*  .,  n; 
sheep  I  have,  which  are  not  of  this  fold  :  them  also  I  must  bring  (or, 
lead),  and  they  shall  hear  my  voice.'  Alford  observes  :  '  The  other 
aheejj  are  the  Gentiles ;  not  the  dispersion  of  the  Jews,  who  were 
already  in  Clod's  fold.''  That  interpretation  is  corroborated  by  the 
vision  subsequently  sent  to  Peter,  by  the  mission  of  the  apostle  Paul  lo.vets. 
to  the  heathen  world,  and  by  tlie  reverential  enthusiasm  with  which 
he  and  Barnabas  announce  the  fact  that  God  '  had  opened  a  door  of  u  .v.-tsiir 
faith  unto  the  Gentiles.'  It  is  to  be  observed  that  Jesus  reverts  to 
the  Avords  of  the  original  simile,  '  them  also  I  must  lead,  and  they 
shall  hear  my  voice,'  but  ho  does  not  repeat,  'even  as  the  Father 
knoweth  me,  and  I  know  the  Father.'  His  mode  of  guidance  now  is 
indirect  ;  he  is  in  the  heavens ;  we  hear  his  voice  as  of  one  who 
towers  above  us,  and  Avhose  nature  and  attributes  we  cannot  attain 
to.  His  earthly  flock  is  held  together  rather  by  the  instinct  of  gre- 
gariousness  than  by  the  guidance  of  himself  and  his  Spirit;  we  have  a 
knowledge  of  his  voice,  of  his  call,  rather  than  of  his  words;  some 
have  professed  to  reveal  him  through  the  subtleties  of  the  Athanasian 
creed  ;  some  have  attained  to  the  conceptions  of  him  embodied  in 
the  Nicene  creed  ;  for  most  of  us  the  simple,  historical  facts  of  the 
Apostles'  creed  suffice  :  we  hear  his  voice  and  are  to  a  certain  extent 
led  by  it, — he  himself  did  not  say  that  we  should  understand  it, — 
and  how  little  his  words  and  their  spirit  are  comprehended  through- 
out Christendom,  let  our  standing  armies,  our  daily  records  of  crime, 
our  social  evils  in  their  multitudinous  forms,  attest.  He  has  told  us 
earthly  things,  and  wo  belicA'e  not :  how  shall  we  believe  when  he 
tells  us  of  heavenly  things  ?  The  first  and  foremost  aim  of  Jesus  was 
to  give  pasture  to  his  flock, — to  satisfy  the  needs  of  our  common 
humanity  ;  and  till  the  Church  accomplishes  that  work,  by  moulding 
the  framework  of  Christian  society  after  the  pattern  of  the  Sermon  on 
the  mount  and  the  other  hints  which  Jesus  gave  respecting  the 
principles  and  regulations  of  his  '  assembly,'  no  realisation  will  have 
been  attained,  or  properly  attempted,  of  that  kingdom  of  heaven 
which  he  came  to  establish  on  earth.  It  was  the  purpose  of  Jesus  to 
unite  all  of  mankind  who  would  accept  his  supremacy  into  one  com- 
panionship and  fellowship.  'And  they  shall  become  one  flock  (or,  lojuiiu  n 
there  shall  be  one  flock),  one  shepherd.'  Alford  obser\-es  :  '  The  one 
Jioclc  is  remarkable — not  one  fold,  as  characteristically,  but  erroneously 
rendered  in  the  Authorised  Version  :  not  one  fold,  but  one  flock ,-  no 
one  exclusive  enclosure  of  an  outward  church,  but  one  flock,  all  know- 
ing the  one  Shepherd  and  known  of  Him.' 

In  the  piu'suit  of  his  self-sacrificing  plan  on  behalf  of  mankind, 


lO.IoI 

111  IT 

L'O  Ma 

1 7 

t.  10 

IS  Lu 

ke  33 

118  THE   KING    AND    THE    KINGDOM:  [part  ii. 

Jesus  fclfc  himself  to  be  working  out  the  divine  will.  '  Therefore  cloth 
the  Father  love  me ,  because  I  lay  clown  my  life.'  In  the  same 
breath  he  added  :  '  that  I  may  take  it  again.'  This  was  the  character- 
istic of  Jesus.  No  instance  is  recorded  of  his  ever  having  spoken  of 
his  death  except  in  connection  with  life.  '  They  shall  condemn  him 
to  death  ....  and  the  third  day  he  shall  be  raised  up.'  '  They  shall 
scourge  and  kill  him  :  and  the  third  day  he  shall  rise  again.'  His 
idea  of  death  invoh'ed  resurrection  and  fuller  life  :  '  Verily,  verily,  1 
say  unto  you,  Except  a  grain  of  wheat  fall  into  the  earth  and  die,  it 
abideth  by  itself  alone  ;  but  if  it  die,  it  beareth  much  fruit.  He  that 
loveth  his  life  loseth  it  ;  and  he  that  hateth  his  life  in  this  world  shall 
keep  it  unto  life  eternal.'  '  iVnd  I,  if  I  be  lifted  up  from  the  earth, 
will  draw  all  men  unto  myself.  But  this  he  said,  signifying  by  what 
manner  of  death  he  should  die.'  Jesus  encountered  death  of  his  own 
free  will  :  his  adversaries  had  not  rushed  against  him,  but  he  against 
them  ;  just  as  the  wolf,  attacking  only  the  sheep,  was  resisted  by  the 
shepherd,  who  sacrificed  himself  for  them.  '  No  one  taketh  it  awa}' 
from  me  ;  but  I  lay  it  down  of  myself.'  The  Eevisers  note  :  '  Some 
ancient  authorities  read  ioolc  it  airay.''  The  Sinaitic  and  Vaticai 
MSS.  tirst  and  second  in  point  of  age,  read,  '  No  man  hath  taken  it,' 
although  Tischendorf  has  not  followed  them.  That  reading  points  tc 
a  higher  and  altogether  different  sense  attaching  to  this  saying  of 
Jesus,  for  it  cannot  be  said,  with  absolute,  literal  truth,  that  no  man 
took  his  earthly  life.  The  apostle  Peter  asserted  the  contrary : 
'  Him  ...  ye  by  the  hand  of  lawless  men  did  crucify  and  slay.' 
'  The  Clod  of  our  fathers  raised  up  Jesus,  whom  ye  slew,  hanging  him 
on  a  tree.'  The  form  of  the  expressions,  '  No  man  took  it  away,'  or, 
'  No  man  hath  taken  it  away,'  Jesus  being  yet  alive,  does  not  denote 
a  future  act.  The  oldest  readings  harmonise  with  and  are  indicative 
of  the  true  meaning,  which  must  not  be  set  aside  because  later 
copyists,  failing  to  discern  the  reason  and  bearing  of  so  exceptional 
and  peculiar  an  expression,  altered  it  from  'hath  taken  it  away'  to 
'  taketh  it  away.'  One  result  of  the  alteration  has  been  to  set  com- 
mentators upon  a  search  for  wrong  inferences  from  this  and  othei' 
passages.  Alford  appears  to  take  a  vicAV  the  very  opposite  of  that  ol 
Peter,  and  does  not  scruple  to  say  of  the  death  of  Jesus  :  '  It  was  Itis 
oivn  ad.''  The  arguments  upon  Avhich  that  astounding  assertion  is 
based  are  strained  and  far-fetched  :  '  The  truth  of  this  voluntary 
rendering  up  was  shewn  by  his  whole  sufferings,  from  the  falling  of 
his  enemies  to  the  ground  in  the  garden  (ch.  xviii.  G)  to  the  last 
words,  '  /  commend  (render  up)  my  spirit,  Luke  xxiii.  4().'  Could 
anything  be  weaker  in  the  way  of  argument  ?  The  evangelist  records, 
'  They  went  backward  and  fell  to  the  ground.'  Alford  assumes  that 
they  were  struck  down  by  the  power  of  Jesus  :  ergo,  no  man  put  him 

•23  Luke  40  to  death  !  Jesus  said  :  '  Father,  into  thy  hands  I  commend  my 
spirit : '  and  that  also  is  taken  to  prove  that  no  human  power  killed 
him  ;  in  fact,  that  crucifixion  and  the  draining  away  of  his  life 
blood  would  never  have  resulted  in  death  l)ut  for  the  voluntary  deter- 

7  .Vets  (-.(»  mination  of  Jesus  !  The  dying  cry  of  Stephen,  '  Lord  Jesus,  receive 
my  spirit,'  has  never  been  so  perverted,  nor  would  the  equivalent  last 
utterance  of  Jesus  have  been  so,  were  it  not  for  a  foregone  and 
erroneous  conclusion.  Anything  within  reach  is  laid  hold  of  in 
support  of  it:  'None  of  the    Evangelists  sa.y  Re  died : — but  it  is. 


;;  Acts  2:! 
s  Acts  ;!(i 


PAUT  II.]         .4    STUDY    OF    TJIE    FOUR    GOSFFLS.  119 

yielded  vp    the    spirit,   ]\Iatthc\v  ;   hreathcd   I/is   tad.    Murk,    Luke : 

'delivered  up  Iiis  spirit,  .lolni.'    Wore  not  all  these  customary  modes  of 

expression,  applied  constantly  to  the  deaths  of  ordinary  men  ?     The 

lile  which  Jesus  had  laid  down,  and  which  he  would  resume,  was  a 

life  prior  to  that  he  led  on  earth,  and  of  that  former  life  he  said  :  '  1  lo  Joi.-.i  is 

have  power  (or,  right)  to  lay  it  down,  and  I  have  power  (or ,^ right) 

to  take  it  again.     This  commandment  received  I  from  my  Father.' 

In  exposing^  himself  to  the  hostility  of  his  foes,  in  abating  no  jot  of  his 

pretensions  before  their  prejudices  and  criticisms,  in  carrying  on  his 

work  despite  their  malice  aiid  threats,  and  with  the  inevitable  end  of 

scorn,  scoffs,  scourging,  crucifixion  plainly  revealed  and  ever  before 

his  eyes,  Jesus  went  forward,  upheld  by  the  consciousness  that  such 

was  the  will  of  (lod  concerning  him. 

The  criticisms  of  Mr.  ]\Iatthew  xVrnold  on  this  part  of  John's 
gospel  are  based  on  the  assumption  that  an  obviously  wrong  arrange- 
ment of  the  words  of  Jesus  has  been  adopted.  He  says  :  *  '  AV  ho  can 
doubt  that  here,  again,  we  have  two  separate  sets  of  lo/jia  of  Jesus  ; 
one  set  which  ha\-e  /  am  the  good  shepherd  for  their  centre,  and 
another  set  which  have  for  their  centre  /  am  the  door ;  and  that  our 
Evangelist  has  thrown  the  two  together  and  confused  them  ?  Beau- 
tiful as  the  sayings  are  even  when  thus  mixed  up  together,  they  are 
liir  more  beautiful  when  disentangled.  But  the  Evangelist  had  a 
doorkeeper  and  a  door  and  sheep  in  his  first  parable  :  and  he  had 
another  parable  iu  which  was  a  "door  of  the  sheep."  Catching 
again  at  an  apparent  connection,  he  could  not  resist  joining  the 
two  parables  together,  and  making  one  ser\e  as  the  explanation  of 
the  other.'  That  statement  is  made  in  a  very  cool  and  positive  way, 
but  it  has  no  better  foundation  than  the  critical  acumen  of  a  scholai- 
dealing  Avith  a  narrative  of  remote  antiquity.  Mr.  jMatthew  Arnold 
assumes  that  two  similar  parables  were  spoken  l)y  Jesus,  the  one  not 
overlapping  or  repeating  the  similes  of  the  other, — that  the  evan- 
gelist had  "them  before  him  in  proper  form,  but  was  so  obtuse  that 
he  did  not  appreciate  their  simplicity  and  symmetry, — that,  iailing 
to  do  so,  he  was  misled  by  'an  apparent  connexion,'  and  'could  not 
resist  joining  the  two  parables  together.'  Now,  that  is  done  by 
verse  G,  which  stands  as  follows  :  'This  paraljle  spake  Jesus  unto 
them:  but  they  understood  not  what  things  they  Avere  which  he  spake 
unto  them.  Jesus  therefore  said  unto  them  again. .  .'  Did  the  evan- 
gelist invent  that  connexion  ?  Mr.  Arnold  seems  to  say  so,  for  he 
proceeds  as  follows  :  '  To  explain  the  first  parable,  and  to  go  on  all 
fours  with  it,  the  second  ought  to  run  as  follows  :  "  I  am  the  door  of 
the  sheep.  All  that  elimb  up  some  other  ivaij  are  thieves  and  robbers  ; 
but  the  sheep  do  not  hear  them,  T  am  the  door  ;  by  me  if  any  man 
enter,  he  is  the  shepherd  of  the  sheep.''  The  words  in  italics  must  be 
substituted  for  the  words  now  in  the  text  of  our  (Gospel  ;  and  Jesus 
must  stand,  not  as  the  door  of  sah-ation  in  general,  but  as  the  door 
l)v  which  to  enter  is  the  sign  of  the  true  teacher.  There  can  be  no 
doubt,  however,  that  the  words  now  in  the  text  are  right,  and  that 
what  is  wrong  is  the  connexion  imposed  on  them.'  That  very  serious 
charge  against  the  compiler  of  the  narrative  amounts  to  this  :  He  did 
not  know,  and  did  not  much  care,  what  he  was  about ;  he  fancied 

*   "  God  ami  the  Bible.     The  Fourth  Gospel  from  Within." 


120  TBE   KING   AND    THE    KINGDOM:  [part  ii. 

there  was  '  a  connexion  which  did  not  exist ' ;  he  therefore  joined 
*  the  two  parables  together,'  and  made  '  one  serve  as  the  explanation 
of  the  other' ;  but  when  he  had  done  that,  the  second  parable  did 
not  'explain  the  first,'  or  'go  on  all  fours  with  it' !     Was  there  ever 
such  a  bungler  as  this  meddlesome,  not  \ery  scrupulous  e\angelist  ? 
Mr.  IMatthew  Arnold,  after  all  these  centuries,  steps  forward  to  put 
him  and  us  right  ;  and  he  does  so  in  this  way.     '  The  seventh  and 
ninth  verses  are  a  Joijion  quite  distinct  i'rom  wliat  precedes  and  folloAvs, 
and  ought  to  be  entirely  separated  from  it.     Their  logion  is  :  "I  am 
the  door  of  the  sheep.     I  am  the  door  ;  by  me  if  a  man  enter  he 
shall  be  saved,  and  shall   go  in  and  out  and  find  pasture."     The 
eighth  verse  belongs  to  the  first  parable,  the  parable  of  the  shepherd  ; 
not  to  the  parable  of  the  door.     It  should  follow  the  fifth  verse,  and 
be  followed  by  the  tenth.     Jesus  says  of  the  sheep  :  "A  stranger  Avill 
they  not  follow,  but  will  flee  from  him,  for  they  know  not  the  voice 
of  strangers.     All  that  hxqx  came  before  me  are  thieves  and  robbers  ; 
but  the  sheep  did  not  hear  them.     The  thief  cometh  not  but  to  steal 
and  to  kill  and  to  destroy  ;  I  am  come  that  they  might  have  life,  and 
that  they  might  have  it  more  abundantly.    I  am  the  good  shepherd.'" ' 
That  is  how  Mr.  Arnold  would  remedy  what  he  terms  '  the  artistic 
failure  at  the   beginning   of  the  tenth  chapter.'     But   there   is  no 
evidence,  outside  Mr.  Arnold's  own  mind,  that  any  such  failure  is 
chargeable  against  the  compiler  of  the  narrative.     Surely  he  could 
have   discerned, — a  child   could   have   discerned   the  fact, — that   it 
Avould  be  simpler  to  combine  all  that  was  said  about  a  door  in  one 
parable,  and  to  inake  a  separate  parable  about  the  shepherd.     The 
evangelist,  with  the  original  records  before  him,  would  not,  could  not. 
do  that.     ]\Ir.  Arnold  is  bolder :  he  not  only  does  it,  but  imputes 
stupidity,  '  an  artistic  failure,'  to  the  evangelist  for  not  having  done 
it, —  charges  him  with  imagining  and  actually  'imposing  a  connexion 
which  did  not  exist,'  and  blandly  condescends  to  argue  thence  that 
we  must  needs  have  the  actual  words  of  Jesus,  although  in  a  wrong- 
sequence,  because  the  evangelist  has  shewn  such  an  utter  incom- 
petency :  be  could  not  even  arrange  them  properly, — how  much  less 
could  he  have  invented  them  !     '  A  consummate  artist,  inventing  for 
Jesus,  could   not  have  been  satisfied  with  such  a  merely  seeming 
and  verbal  connexion.'     Not  by  such  criticisms,  erudite  and  honest 
though  they  be,  can  the  gospel  nairatives  be  properly  gauged,  set 
aside,  or  upheld. 

This  discourse  of  Jesus  produced  opposite  feelings  in  those  who 
listened  to  it.  Many  aftectcd  to  regard  hin^  as  a  kind  of  inspired 
lunatic,  to  whose  rhapsodies  it  was  not  woith  while  to  pay  attention. 
,1^  '  There  arose  a  division  again  among  the  Jews  because  of  these  words. 
-0  And  many  of  them  said.  He  hath  a  devil  (Gr.  demon)  and  is  mad  ; 
why  hear  ye  him  ? '  The  Eevisers,  on  the  authority  of  the  two  oldest 
MSS.,  have  omitted  the  word  '  therefore '  before  the  word  '  again.' 
This  contemptuous  criticism  was  not  suffered  to  pass  unchallenged. 
Words  so  solemn,  so  cogent,  so  touching  as  those  of  Jesus,  had 
never  been,  and  could  never  be  uttered  by  one  labouring  under 
any  kind  of  mental  aberration.  '  Others  said.  These  are  not  the 
sayings  of  one  possessed  with  a  devil  (Gr.  demon).'  His  words 
must  be  taken  in  conjunction  with  his  works,  and  it  would  be 
impossible   to    attribute    to    demoniacal    influence    the    miraculous 


PART  II.]         A    STUDY    OF    THE   FOUli    GOSFELS.  121 

restoration  of  sicjht  to  the  blind.     'Can  a  devil  ((Jr.  demon)  open  io.i,.i„i -.-i 
the  eyes  of  the  blind  ? ' 

The  narrative  proceeds  as  follows:  'And  it  was  the  feast  of  the  „  •-!•-.-! 
dedication  at  Jerusalem:  and  it  was  winter  ;  and  Jesus  was  walking: 
in  the  temple  in  Solomon's  porch.'  There  is  here  an  impression  of 
consecutiveness.  The  Vatican  M8.  begins  with  the  w(jr(ls,  '  It  was 
then';  and  the  Revisers  note:  'Some  ancient  authorities  read  At 
Uiat  time  icas  the  frasi.''  Alford  explains  :  '  This  feast  had  become 
usual  since  the  time  when  Judas  Maccabseus  purified  the  temple  from 
the  profanations  of  Antiochus.  It  was  held  on  Chisleu  (December) 
ir>,  and  seven  foHowint;'  days  :  see  1  Mace.  iv.  41— ."»!)  :  2  Mace.  x. 
1 — 8.'  An  att(;mpt  was  made  on  this  occasion  to  extract  from  Jesus 
a  positive  declaration  of  his  Messiahship.  His  countrymen  sur- 
rounded him,  reproached  him  with  the  ambiguousness  attaching  to 
his  claims  and  position,  and  desired  a  plain  answer  to  the  question 
whether  he  was  the  Christ.  '  The  Jews  therefore  came  round  about  ,,  -n 
him,  and  said  unto  him,  How  long  dost  thou  hold  us  in  suspense  ? 
H'  thou  art  the  Christ,  tell  us  plainly.'  The  expression  in  the  Autho- 
rised Version  is,  '  How  long  dost  thou  make  us  to  doubt  ?  '  Young 
i-enders  literally  :  '  Till  when  our  soul  dost  thou  hold  in  suspense  ? ' 
'I'he  reply  of  Jesus  was  peculiar  :  '  Jesus  answered  them,  I  told  you,  ,,  .>.-, 
and  ye  believe  not.'  To  the  Samaritan  woman  Jesus  had  said  :  '  I  4  Joim  ■!>■> 
that  spake  unto  thee  am  hp.'  If  he  had  said  the  same  to  these  Jews, 
they  would  not  now  have  been  putting  their  question.  There  must 
ha\e  been  some  good  reason  wliicli  withheld  Jesus  from  answering 
by  a  simple  'yes'  or  'no';  the  latter  he  could  not,  and  the  former  he 
would  not  say.  We  know  that  'the  Jews  had  agreed  already  that  if  lUnim  s-s 
any  man  should  confess  him  to  he  Christ,  he  should  be  put  out  of  the 
synagogue.'  There  were  many  who  had  believed  in  him  without 
waiting  for  any  fuller  declaration  on  his  part.  A  word  from  Jesus 
might  have  doomed  his  disciples  to  the  threatened  penalty  of  excom- 
munication :  all  of  them  would  have  had  to  decide  at  once  between 
recantation  and  martyrdom.  If  the  Teacher  himself  claimed,  to  be 
Christ,  they  would  either  have  been  forced  to  own  him  such,  and 
suffer,  or  to  disown  him.  That  was  a  dilemma  which  these  un- 
believing questioners  would  have  rejoiced  to  bring  about.  By  'Jews' 
liere  we  understand  the  Judajans,  to  whom  the  title  jjroperly  applied, 
and  who  were  hostile  to  .Jesus  from  first  to  last,  ever  seeking  to  kill 
Jiim,  and  compelling  him  to  carry  on  his  labours  outside  the  sphere 
of  their  jurisdiction  and  influence.  By  returning  to  Jerusalem  and 
teaching  in  their  midst,  he  was  now  defying  their  animoisity.  They 
were  on  the  watch  to  entraj)  hini,  and  it  behoved  him,  for  the  sake 
of  others  as  well  as  of  himself,  to  answer  warily.  The  ])opular  notion 
of  the  Christ  was  out  of  harmony  with  the  true  vocation  of  Jesus : 
men  had  yet  to  learn  that  the  Messiah  was  simply  a  moral  reformer, 
a  spiritual  guide,  that  he  was  no  king  or  (-onqueror  after  the  recog- 
nised earthly  fashion.  Who  he  was,  and  what  his  office  was,  could 
be  manifested  only  by  his  own  words  and  works.  It  would  have  been 
misleading  and  dangerous  to  adopt  to  himself  a  title  sure  to  be  mis- 
understood. His  claim  to  Messiahship  must  follow  his  teaching,  not 
precede  it  or  be  extolled  apart  from  it.  After  his  spiritual  discourse 
at  the  well,  and  when  the  Samaritan  woman  had  ex]>ressed  her  con- 
viction that  Messiah  was  a  Teacher  of  such  truths,  Jesus  could  safely 


122  THE    KING    AND    THE    KINGDOM:  [part  it. 

]"»reseiifc  liiraself  to  her  in  tliat  character.     But  lie  manifested  intense 

anxiety  not  to  be  proclaimed  pnblicly.     It  was  well  that  Peter  should 

ii!  Mat.  ir.     recognise  and  own  the  fact,  '  Thon  art  the  Christ,'  but  it  must  nevcr- 

„  •2^>  theless  be  held  back  from  the  world's  knowledge  :  '  Then  charged  he 
the  disciples  that  they  should  tell  no  man  that  he  was  the  Christ.' 
This  reticence  on  the  part  of  .Jesus  was  not  understood  by  John  the 
11  :Mnt.  •-',  n  Baptist,  who  '  heard  in  the  prison  the  works  of  the  Christ,'  and  •  sent 
by  his  disciples,  and  said  unto  him,  Art  thou  he  that  cometh.  or  look 
we  for  another  ? '     E\tu  to  them  Jesus  gave  no  direct  reply,  but 

„  -i  'answered  and  said  unto  them.  Go  your  way  and  tell  John  the  things 
which  ye  do  hear  and  see,'  thereby  intimating  that  his  personality 
and  office  were  to  be  disclosed  only  by  his  course  of  action,  that  it 
was  enough  to  know  that  he  did  '  the  works  of  the  C^lirist,'  without 
bringing  the  title  itself  into  notoriety.  But  for  this  cautious  reserve, 
it  is  ])robable  that  the  popular  enthusiasm  with  respect  to  Jesus  would 
have  taken  some  undesirable  form  of  development,  thereby  interfer- 
ing with  his  plan  of  teaching,  bringing  him  into  collision  with  the 
ecclesiastical  and  civil  rulers,  and  precipitating  that  catastrojihe  which 
overtook  him  at  the  last.  On  one  occasion  Jesus  perceived  that  the 
,i..ini  1".  multitude  '  were  about  to  come  and  take  him  by  force,  to  make  him 
king  ';  he  knew,  moreover,  that  his  adversaries  were  ever  on  the  watch 
to  formulate  an  accusation  against  him  :  he  would  have  been  simply 
playing  into  their  hands  had  he  allowed  them  to  extort  from  him  an 
unqualified  admission  of  his  Messiahship.  His  answer  to  them  was 
10  Join.  2.-.  identical  with  that  he  had  formerly  given  to  the  Baptist :  '  The  works 
that  I  do  in  my  Father's  name,  these  bear  witness  of  me.'  His  works 
of  mercy  were  sutHcient  attestation  of  his  spirit  and  power.  He 
claimed  no  title,  nor  would  he  suffer  one  to  be  put  forward,  which 
might  servo  as  a  rallying  cry  for  the  populace  to  lay  hold  of  and  per- 
A'ert.  He  had  no  quarrel  with  the  ruling  powers  ;  he  preaclied  no 
crusade  ;  the  followers  he  sought  were  not  fighting  volunteers, 
nationalists,  resolute  partisans,  but  had  been  described  by  him  as 
'sheep  '  ;  the  only  title  tiiat  Jesus  chose  was  that  of  'shepherd' :  in 

..  ji-i.  -'7  that  character  it  was  for  men  to  reject  him  or  follow  him.  '  But  ye 
believe  not,  because  ye  are  not  of  my  sheep.  My  sheep  hear  my 
voice,  and  I  know  them,  and  they  follow  me.'  The  Revisers  have 
omitted  the  concluding  words  of  verse  2G,  '  as  1  said  unto  you,'  on 
the  authority  of  the  two  oldest  J\I8S.  All  that  Jesus  offered  them 
was  that  which  they  had   already — life,  but   life   prolonged   to   its. 

,.  :i8  utmost  limit :  '  And  I  give  unto  them  eternal  life  ;  and  they  shall 
never  perish.'  This  is  rendered  l)y  Young  :  '  And  life  age-during  I 
give  to  them,  and  they  shall  not  perish — to  the  age.'  Jesus  does  not 
say  that  he  will  immortalise  his  sheep,  but  he  promises  to  safeguard 

„  2s  them  :  '  and  no  one  shall  snatch  them  out  of  my  hand.'  The  Autho- 
rised Yersion  continues  :  '  My  Father,  which  gave  them  to  me,  is 
greater  than  all  ;  and  no  man  is   able  to   pluck  them  out  of  my 

,.  '2i'  Father's  hand.'  The  Revised  Yersion  stands  :  '  My  Father,  which 
hath  given  fheni  unto  me,  is  greater  than  all ;  and  no  one  is  able  to 
snatch  f/tem  (or,  aught)  out  of  the  Father's  hand.'  The  Revisers 
have  inserted  the  note :  '  Some  ancient  authorities  read,  Tltat  wlikli 
my  Father  hath  ijiven  vnto  me.''  Alford  states  that  to  be  the  reading 
of  'most  of  our  ancient  copies.'  The  three  oldest  MSS.,  however, 
give  no  hint  of  that  reading  ;  yet  Tischendorf  adopted  it,  the  alteni- 


PART  11. J         .1    STUDY    OF    THE    FOUR    GOSPELii.  123 

tion  hchv^  included  amoii.i;' tlie  'orruta.'  Tlicpassa<i-c  as  it  thus  stands 

harmonises  with  the  preceding-  idea  :  '  That  which  my  Father  hath 

ii-iven  unto  me  is  greater  than  all ' ;  the  guidance  and  safe-keeping  of 

the  sheep  entrusted  to  me  are  greater  than  all  besides  :  the  word 

uirizon,  greater,  judging  from  the  44  passages  in  which  it  occurs, 

does  not  denote  'stronger,'  but  niorr  important .     And  the  life  which 

the  Father   gives   through  the  Son,  and   desires   to  perpetuate,  is 

beyond  the  reiicli  of  any  adverse  power  :  'and  no  one  is  able  to  snatch 

out  of  the  Father's  hand.'     Alford  explains  that  the  italicised  word 

■them'  or  'aught'  is  'not  in  the  original.'     Then  Jesus  added  :  'T  id.idim  :j« 

and  the  Father  are  one.'     Alford  explains  :  '  Notice,  One  is  neuter  in 

gender,  not  masculine  :  the  Father  and  the  Son  are  not  jiersonattii 

one,  but  cssenthitt//.''     The  meaning  of  the  expression  is  clear  from 

its  use  elsewhere  by  Jesus.     'Holy  Father,  keep  them  in  thy  name  i:j,,i,,,  ii 

which  thou  hast  given  me,  that  they  may  be  one,  even  as  we  are.' 

Again  :  '  That  they  may  be  one,  even  as  we  are  one  ;  I  in  them,  and      ,,    ■_.•_>,  j 

thou  in  me,  that  they  may  be  perfected  into  one.'    The  unity  existing 

among  Christians  is  spoken  of  in  the  same  breath  and  as  being  of  the 

same  character,  with  that  existing  between  Jesus  and  his  Father.   Yet 

so  incensed  and  scandalised  were  the  Jews  by  this  saying  of  Jesus, 

that  they  prepared  to  stone  him.     '  The  Jews  took  up  stones  again  to  lo  j,.i,ii  31 

stone  him.'     Not  on  the  impulse  of  the  moment,  as  though  first  one 

had  stooped  down  to  lift  a  stone,  and  then  another  had  followed  his 

example.     Tischendorf  brings  out  the  deliberateuess  of  the  purpose 

by  rendering,  '  The  Jews  again  bore  stones  to  stone  him.'     In  the  2(> 

other  instances  in  which  the  verb  l>((st((zo,  here  rendered  'take  up,' 

occurs,  it  is  translated  in  the  A.  Y.  'bear'  or  'carry.'     It  was  a 

moment  of  grave  peril.     Jesus  could  not  fail  to  perceive  their  design, 

and  he  calmly  expostulated  with  them.    '  Jesus  answered  them.  Many      „    31.' 

good  works  have  I  shewed  you  i'rom  the  Father  ;  for  which  of  those 

works  do  ye  stone  me  ? '     They  replied  that  it  was  not  for  any  of  his 

works,  but  for  his  words  :  that  has  ever  been  the  cry  of  persecutors. 

•  The  Jews  answered  him,  Foi'  a  good  work  we  stone  thee  not,  but  for      „    33 

bhisphemy.'     Young,  here  and   elsewhere,  renders  the  word  '  blas- 

pliemy  '  by  '  evil  speaking.'     They  added  :  '  and  because  that  thou,      „    3» 

being  a  man,  makest  thyself  God.'     Their  idea  is  still  current,  and 

prevails  :  that  the  term  '  God '  is  necessarily  restricted  to  the  one 

Supremo  Being.   Jesus  repudiated  that  idea.   He  reminded  them  that 

in  Scripture  the  title  was  used  in  a  much  wider  sense,  and  had  been 

ajiplied,  under  revelation  from  God  himself,  to  certain  of  mankind. 

'  Jesus  answered  them,  Is  it  not  written  in  your  law,  I  said,  Ye  are 

gods  ? '     The  reference  is  evidently  to  one  of  the  Psalms  of  Asaph  : 

'God  standeth  in  the  congregation  of  God  ;  s 

He  judgeth  among  the  gods. 

How  long  will  ye  judge  unjustly. 

And  respect  the  persons  of  the  wicked  ? 

I  said.  Ye  are  gods. 

And  all  of  you  sons  of  the  Most  High. 

Nevertheless  ye  shall  die  like  men. 

And  fall  like  one  of  the  princes. 

Arise,  0  God,  judge  the  earth.' 
Alford  observes  :  '  The  Psalm  is  directed  against  the  injustice  and 
tyranny  of  judges  (not  the  Gentile  rulers  of  the  world,  nor,  the 


124  THE    KING    AND    THE    KINGDOM:  [pakt  ii. 

mif/eJs)  ill  Israel.  And  in  the  Psalm  reference  is  made  by  I  have 
said  to  previous  places  in  Scripture  where  judges  are  so  called,  viz. 
Exod.  xxi.  G  ;  xxii.  'J,  is.'  The  passages  here  referred  to  stand  in 
Young's  version  as  follows  :  '  Then  hath  his  lord  brought  him  nigh 
nnto  God.'  '  Unto  (Jod  cometh  the  matter  of  them  both  ;  he  whom 
(lod  doth  condemn  he  repayeth  double  to  his  neighbour.'  '  God  thou 
dost  not  revile,  and  the  prince  among  thy  people  thou  dost  not  curse.' 
In  the  Authorised  Version  these  passages  stand  :  '  Then  his  master 
shall  bring  him  unto  the  judges.'  '  The  cause  of  both  parties  shall 
come  befoi'e  the  judges  ;  and  whom  the  judges  shall  condemn,  he 
shall  pay  double  unto  his  neighbour.'  '  I'hou  shalt  not  revile  the 
gods  (or,  judges),  nor  curse  the  ruler  of  thy  people.'  Evidently  the 
translators  deemed  the  term  '  god '  synonymous  with  '  judge,'  and  did 
not  scruple  on  occasion  so  to  render  it.  The  Revisers  have 
followed  Young  by  inserting  '  God '  in  the  text,  and  the  Authorised 
Version  by  putting  '  judges  '  in  the  margin.  On  this  obvious  and 
undeniable  application  of  the  word  '  God '  in  the  Scriptures,  Jesus 
>,  founded  an  argument.  '  If  he  called  them  gods,  unto  whom  the 
'"  word  of  God  came  (and  the  scripture  cannot  be  broken),  say  ye  of 
him,  whom  the  Father  sanctified  (or,  consecrated)  and  sent  into  the 
world.  Thou  blasphemest  ;  because  I  said,  I  am  ihe  Son  of  God  ?" 
Jesus  admits  that  he  had  claimed  tlie  title,  not  of  '  God,'  but  of  '  Son 
of  God.'  In  the  true,  old,  recognised  Scriptural  sense  of  the  word, 
there  was  nothing  to  forbid  the  application  to  himself  of  the  title 
'  God  '  ;  he  could  not  disclaim  it,  but  he  claimed  it  only  as  bestowed 
and  derivative,  as  one  consecrated  by  the  Father  and  sent  into  the 
Avorld,  as  being  Son  of  God.  Jesus  was  willing  that  his  assumptions 
should  be  brought  to  the  test  of  fact.  Did  he,  or  did  he  not  exercise 
powers  which,  being  su])erhuman,  stamped  themselves  as  God-given, 
divine  ?  '  If  I  do  not  the  works  of  my  Father,  believe  me  not.'  It 
were  enough  to  make  them  the  sole  criterion  of  judgment.  Let  his 
own  assertions  about  himself  be  set  aside,  let  his  teachings  and  his 
miracles  l)e  regarded  by  themselves  :  they  proved  sufficiently  their 
character  and  origin,  '  But  if  I  do  them,  though  ye  believe  not  me, 
believe  the  works  :  that  ye  may  know  and  understand  that  tlie 
Father  is  in  me,  and  I  in  the  Father.'  The  Authorised  Version  has  : 
'  that  ye  may  know  and  believe  ; '  the  Revisers  have  followed  the 
Vatican  MS.  by  putting  '  understand  '  ibr  '  believe.'  The  last  word, 
'Father,'  stands  in  the  Authorised  Version  '  him,' which  has  l)een 
altered  on  the  authority  of  the  two  oldest  MSS. 

The  argument  of  Jesus  could  not  be  refuted,  but  in  spite  of  it,  and 
of  his  appeal  in  connection  with  it,  an  attempt  was  made  to  appre- 
hend him.  If  they  could  not  venture  to  stone  him  nncondemned, 
they  Avere  anxious  at  least  to  put  him  on  his  trial  for  blasphemy. 
'  They  sought  again  to  take  him.'  The  Authorised  Version  adds  : 
'  But  he  escaped  out  of  their  hand.'  Instead  of  '  escaped,'  Alford 
]-enders  'passed,'  and  Young  '  went  forth.'  The  latter  is  adopted  by 
Tischendorf  and  the  Revisers.  'And  he  went  forth  out  of  theii- 
hand.'  The  expression  '  out  of  their  hand '  indicates  the  imminence 
of  the  peril,  if  not  an  actual  '  escape.' 

.lesus  retired  for  safety  to  the  other  side  of  the  river  Jordan,  and 
chose  as  his  abode  the  place  where  the  Baptist  had  commenced  his 
ministry.     'And  he  went  away  again  beyond  Jordan  into  the  place 


I'AitT  II.]         A    .STUDY    OF    THE    FOUl!    aoSPELS.  125 

wlierc  John  was  at  first  baptizing-  ;  iuul  tliore  lie  abode.'  There 
hcnirors  flocked  to  him.  The  memory  of  tlie  Baptist's  work  was  still 
iVesli,  and  com])aris()u  was  naturally  made  between  -Jesus  aud  his 
foreruimer.  JMiracles  were  no^y  witnessed  whieh  John  never 
attempted,  and  all  that  he  had  foretold  of  .lesus  was  admitted  to  be 
fully  realised.  'And  many  came  unto  him;  and  they  said,  John  lu^fi'im  ji 
indeed  did  no  sif>;n  :  but  all  thini^-s  whatsoever  John  spake  of  this 
man  were  true.'  The  result  was  a  larije  accession,  if  not  of  disciples, 
at  least  of  convinced  listeners  and  beholders.  '  And  many  believed  „  4-' 
on  him  there.' 

\\"hile  Jesus  was  eng'a,2,-ed  in  that  safer  and  more  eneouragin<i^  field 
(»f  labour,  the  brother  of  the  two  ladies  who  had  formerly  shown  him  lo  Luko  ;i,s 
hospitality  was  attacked  by  illness.     '  Now  a  certain  man  was  sick,  ■^" 

iiazarus  of  Bethany,  of  the  village  of  Mary  and  her  sister  Martha.''  "  •^"'"' ^ 
The  evangelist,  or  a  subsequent  compiler,  has  here  thrown  in  an 
observation   which   antioijmtes   a   later   incident    in   the    narrative. 
'  Aud  it  was  that  Mary  which  anointed  the  Lord  with  ointment,      ..    - 
and  wiped  his  feet  with  her  hair,  whose  brother  Lazarus  was  sick.' 
Tiie  sisters  sent  a  special  message  to  Jesus  acquainting  him  with 
the   fiict.      The  wording  of   the  message  indicates  that  Jesus  had 
formed  a  dose  intimacy  and  friendship  with  Lazarus.     'The  sisters      „    s 
therefore  sent  unto  him,  saying.  Lord  (Sir  —Young),  behold,  he  whom 
thou  lovest  is  sick.'     On  receiving  the  news,  Jesus  remarked  that  the 
illness  would  not  be  fatal,  but  would  redound  to  the  glory  of  God, 
and  of  himself  as  the  Son  of  God.     '  J>ut  when  Jesus  heard  it,  he      „    4 
said.  This  sickness  is  not  unto  death,  but  for  the  glory  of  God,  that 
the  Son  of  (rod  may  be  glorified  thereby.'     We  have  already  seen  lojoimac, 
that  Jesus   claimed   that   title.      The   evangelist  explains  that  the 
whole  fimiily  was  very  dear  to  Jesus.     '  Xow  Jesus  loved  Martha,  and  11  Joim  .o 
her   sister,  and   Lazarus.'      Two   days  passed   before  he  gave  any 
indication   of   his   intention  to  respond  to  the  call  of  the  sisters. 
'  When  therefore  he  heard  that  he  was  sick,  he  abode  at  that  time      ,•    i; 
two  days  in  the  place  where  he  was.'     Then  he  startled  his  disciples 
by  proposing  that  they  should  revisit  Judaea.     'Then  after  this  he      :.    r 
saith  to  the  disciples,  Lee  us  go  into  Judsea  again.'     The  suggestion 
filled    them   with    consternation ;    they    trembled    for    his    safety, 
reminded  him  that  his  life  had  been  but  lately  put  in  peril  there. 
and  expressed  astonishment  at  his  design.     '  The  disciples  say  unto      „    s 
him.  Rabbi,  the  Jews  were  but  now  seeking  to  stone  thee  :  and  goest 
rhou  thither  again?'     The  reply  of  Jesus  indicated  that  there  was 
nothing  rash  or  hazardous  in  the  ste})  he  proposed  to  take.     He  had 
due  regard  to  time  and  opportunity.     When  the  night  of  persecution 
had  settled  down  upon  him,  during  which  he  had  felt  that  there  was 
no  work  possible  for  him  in  Jerusalem  except  under  conditions  of 
danger  and  anxiety  which  it  would  have  been  unwise  to  face,  he  had 
remained  (piiescent.     Now  it  was  again  day  :  there  Avas  light  in  him 
and  around  lum,  and  he  could   see   his  course  straight  and  clear 
before  him.     '  Jesus  answered,  Are  there  not  twelve  hours  in  the      „    '.',  10 
day  ?     Jf  a  man  walk  in  the  day,  he  stumbleth  not,  because  he  seeth 
the   light   of   this   world.      But   if   a   man   walk    in   the  night,  he 
stumbleth,  because  the  light  is  not  in  him.'     That  assurance  of  Jesus 
gave   them   no  clue  to  the  purpose  which  was  in  his  mind  ;   but 
l>reseutly  he  disclosed  to  them  the  fact  that  his  journey  was  under- 


126  THE   KING    AND    THE    KINCWOM :  [part  ii. 

11  jniin  11  taken  on  account  of  their  common  friend  Lazarus.  '  Tliese  tilings 
spake  be  :  and  after  this  he  saith  unto  them,  Our  friend  Lazarus  is 
fallen  asleep  ;  but  I  go,  that  I  may  awake  him  out  of  sleep.'  The 
saying  sounded  enigmatical.  The  discijiles  construed  the  mention  of 
sleep  in  connection  with  the  idea  of  repose,  as  an  augury  of  speedy 

,,  1^  recovery.  'The  disc-i^iles  therefore  said  unto  him,  Lord  (Sir — 
YoungO,  if  he  is  fallen  asleep  he  will  recover  (Gr.  be  saved).'  Young 
and  Tischendorf  adopt  the  (Jreek  expression  'be  saved.'  The 
Authorised  Version  has  instead,  '  do  Avell,'  which  is  altered  by  the 
IbCvisers  and  Alford  to  '  recover.'  If  the  ({reek  form,  '  be  saved,' 
had  been  adhered  to  here  and  wherever  else  it  occurs,  the  word 
'  salvation '  would  probably  never  have  been  so  restricted  and 
perverted  in  meaning  as  it  is  now  in  its  popular  acceptation. 

The  disciples  had  not  grasped  the  meaning  of  Jesus,  nor  was  it 

,.  13  possible  for  them  to  do  so  without  clear  explanation.  '  Now  Jesus 
had  spoken  of  his  death  :  but  they  thought  that  he  spake  of  taking 

.,  i-i  rest  in  sleep,'  Jesus  now  spoke  in  plainest  terms.  '  Then  Jesus 
therefore  said  unto  them  plaiuly,  Lazarus  is  dead.'  Here  is, 
apparently,  another  instance  of  supernatural  perception  cm  the  part 
of  Jesus.  We  can  venture  no  positive  opinion  as  to  how  such 
knowledge  was  arrived  at,  whether  by  intuition  or  by  direct  revelation 
from  superior  Beings,  through  visions,  as  is  recorded  to  have  l)een 
the  case  with  Zacharias,  the  mother  of  Jesus,  and  tlie  shepherds,  or 
through  dreams,  as  in  the  case  of  the  Magi  and  of  Joseph  the 
husband  of  Mary.  Xot  only  was  Jesus  assured  of  the  death  of 
liazarus,  but  he  rejoiced  that  he  himself  liad  been  away  duriug  the 

>'  1''  illness  and  at  the  final  crisis.  '  And  I  am  glad  for  your  sakes  that  I 
was  not  there.'  That  circumstance,  instead  of  being  regrettable, 
Avould  prove  a  means  of  confirming  their  confidence  in  Jesus,  for  he 

0,  !■'  added  :  '  to  the  intent  ye  may  believe.'  Notwithstanding  the  fact 
that  Lazarus  was  already  dead,  probably  even  buried,  Jesus  proposed 

„  ij  that  he  and  his  disciples  should  visit  liim  !  'Nevertheless  let  us  go 
unto  him.'  To  make  the  journey  at  that  time,  with  his  disciples 
about  him,  seemed  like  courting  death  ;  yet  one  of  them  used  his 
influence  with  the  rest  to  persuade  them  all  to  comply  with  the 
desire  of  Jesus  :  rather  than  refuse  to  do  so,  leaving  him  to  carry 
out  his  intention   alone,  let  them  he  ready  to  face   death   out   of 

■"  !'■'  loyalty  to  him  and  in  companionshi]")  with  him.  '  Thomas  therefore, 
who  is  called  Didymus  (that  is,  Twiu),  said  unto  his  fellow-disciples, 
Let  us  also  go,  that  we  may  die  with  him,'  Alford  explains  :  '  The 
meaning  of  Thomas,  in  the  Aramaic,  which  was  the  dialect 
of  the  country,  is  the  same  as  that  of  the  Latin  Didijmus,  viz., 
a  iwin.'' 

On  reaching  their  destination  it  was  ascertained  that  the  burial  of 

■»  i'^  Tjazarus  had  taken  i)lace  four  days  previously.  '  So  when  Jesus  came, 
he  found  that  he  had  been  in  the  tomb  four  days  already.'  The 
wording  of  this  would  lead  to  the  inference  that  .Jesus  himself  made 
enquiry  as  to  the  time,  and  must  therefore  have  been  ignorant  of  it 
exactly.  But  this  does  not  follow  from  Young's  literal  rendering  : 
'  Jesus  therefore  having  come,  found  him  four  days  already  in  the 
tomb.'  Not  only  was  .lesus  now  close  to  Jerusalem,  but  his  arrival 
must  necessarily  soon  be  known  to  his  enemies,  many  of  the  Jews 

>■    IS.  i'-^  having  come  to  condole  with  tlie  bereaved  sisters.     '  Now  Bethany 


PART  11.]         A    STUDY    OF    THE    FOUR    GOSPELtS.  127 

was  iii.uli  unto  Jerusalem,  about  fifteen  furlongs  off;  and  many  of 
the  Jews  had  come  to  ]\Iartlia  and  Mary,  to  conscjle  them  coucei'ning 
their  brother.'  The  approaeli  of  Jesus  was  notified  to  Martha,  who 
went   out   to   meet   him,  lea^■i^g•   her  sister   seated   in    the   house. 

*  Martha  therefore,  when  she  heard  that  .Jesus  was  comiug,  went  and  n  J.'im  -.m) 
met   him :    but  JMary  still   sat  in    the  house.'      The    rendering  of 
Young, 'but  Mary  kept  sitting  in  the  house,' and  of  Tischendorf, 

*  but  r\[ary  continued  sitting  in  the  house,'  may  be  taken  to  denote 
a  deliberate  purpose.  Consider  the  circumstances.  Jesus  had  but 
lately  fled  from  Jerusalem.  The  sisters,  when  their  brother  was 
overtaken  by  illness,  could  not  venture  to  ask  that  Jesus  should 
again  expose  himself  to  danger  by  returning  :  they  simply  acquainted 
him  with  the  fact,  '  He  whom  thou  lovest  is  sick.'  AVhcji  they  found 
that  Jesus  had  dared  everything  for  their  sake,  their  first  im))ulse 
would  naturally  be  to  conceal,  if  possible,  his  coming  :  Martha  nuist 
go  quietly  to  meet  him,  whilst  Mary  kept  at  home,  giving  no  indica- 
tion of  the  proximity  of  Jesus.  In  her  greeting  of  Jesus,  Martha's 
regret  at  his  absence  burst  forth  unchecked.  '  ]\Iartha  therefbie  ■•  -i 
said  unto  Jesus,  Lord  (Sir — Young),  if  thou  hadst  been  here,  my 
brother  had  not  died.'  The  cruel  persecutors  of  Jesus  had  indirectly 
brought  about  the  death  of  Lazarus.  Yet  Martlia's  faith  in  the 
])0wer  of  Jesus  was  still  unshaken,  although  her  brother  had  passed 

away  while  he  was  not  at  hand  to  save,  '  And  even  now  I  know  :.  -'i 
that,  whatsoever  thou  shaft  ask  of  God,  God  will  give  thee.'  Jesus 
replied  in  one  pregnant  sentence.  'Jesus  saith  unto  her.  Thy  ..  -^ 
brother  shall  rise  again.'  Martha  perceived  no  specific  promise  in 
the  assurance,  but  took  it  simply  as  a  confirmation  of  lier  faith  in  an 
ultimate  resurrection.  '  Martha  said  unto  him.  I  know  that  he  shall  „  -m 
rise  again  in  the  resurrection  at  the  last  day,'  rendered  by  Y^oung 
with  tautological  exactness,  '  I  know  that  he  will  rise  again,  in  the 
rising  again  at  the  last  day.'  Whether  consciously  or  unconsciously 
Martha  here  laid  hold  upon  a  doctrine  and  form  of  expression  which 
had  been  previously  enunciated  by  Jesus  in  the  words,  '  I  will  raise  ojdimoi 
him  up  at  the  last  day.'  Did  she  grasp  the  true  import  of  the 
saying  ?  Did  she  understand  '  the  last  day '  to  apply  to  some  far 
distant  day  when  there  would  come  to  pass  a  simultaneous  resurrec- 
tion of  all  mankind  ?  If  so,  her  notions  were  about  on  a  par  with 
those  still  generally  prevalent,  their  crudeness,  strangeness,  incon- 
ceivableness,  covered  over  and  made  up  for  by  a  verbal  positiveness 
of  assertion  miscalled  '  faith.'  It  is  a  very  easy  thing  to  take  up  the 
words  of  the  Athanasian  Creed  :  '  At  whose  coming  all  men  shall  rise 
again  with  their  bodies  : '  multitudes  who  have  never  given  five 
minutes'  consecutive  thought  to  the  subject  have  been  wont  to  repeat 
them  glibly,  as  with  a  sacred  unction,  and  as  though  they  held  a 
truth  clear  as  the  noonday  sun,  and  a  ho])e  sufficient  to  live  and  die 
by.  'I  know,'  said  Martha,  but  it  is  a  matter  on  which  none  of  us 
have  knowledge.  The  words  of  our  divine  Teacher  need  to  be 
pondered  deeply,  reverentially,  with  all  humility,  and  a]iart  from  the 
dogmas  which  have  grown  up  round  them.  Jesus  did  not  endorse 
.Martha's  unfaltering  declaration,  but  proceeded  to  put  the  subject  in 
his  ow^n  way.  Resurrection  and  life  were  his  iiKLvelling  attributes. 
.'Jesus  said  unto  her,  I  am  the  resurrection  and  the  life.'  And  those  u  3v\i\-2-> 
attributes  would    be    possessed    by  all    his  followers.      '  He  that     „    -y, 


128  THE    KING    AND    THE    KINGDOM:  [part  ii. 

believeth  on  me,  though  he  die,  yet  shall  he  live  :  and  whosoever 
liveth  and  believeth  on  me  shall  never  die.'  We  cannot  be  too 
careful  to  get  at  the  true  sense  of  tliese  words.  The  Authorised 
Version  has  :  '  He  that  believeth  in  me,  though  he  were  dead,  yet 
shall  he  live.'  Tischendorf  renders:  'though  he  die,  yet  will  he 
live.'  Young  :  '  even  if  he  may  die,  shall  live  : '  Alford  :  '  though 
he  have  died,  yet  shall  he  live  ; '  Samuel  Hharpe  :  '  even  though  he^- 
die,  will  live ; '  the  'Eno-lishman's  Greek  New  Testament '  :  '  though  he 
die,  he  shall  live.'  By  using  '  will' instead  of  '  shall,' Tischendorf 
and  Shar])e  obviate  the  idea  of  a  special  exercise  of  power  in  the  case 
of  every  believer  :  Jesus  asserts  simply  what  '  will '  happen, — the- 
divinely-appointed  law  of  resurrection  from  death.  His  promise  is 
not  completed  by  this  utterance  :  having  before  us  but  one  sentence, 
the  two  members  of  which  are  connected  by  the  word  '  and,'  we  must 
not  divide  the  saying  into  two  sentences,  as  though  Jesus  gave  two 
separate  promises.  Resurrection  and  life  were  his,  and  would  also 
be  the  lot  of  his  followers, — the  life,  that  is,  which  follows  upon 
resurrection,  there  being  obviously  no  reference  to  the  life  which 
precedes  it  :  'and  whosoever  liveth  and  believeth  on  me  shall  never 
die.'  Tischendorf  renders  :  'shall  never  die  ;  "  Alford  :  'shall  not 
die  for  evermore  : '  the  'Englishman's  Greek  New  Testament'  :  '  in  no 
wise  shall  die  for  ever  : '  Sharpe  :  '  will  not  die  till  the  end  of  the 
age.'  The  entire  passage  in  Young's  version  is  as  follows  :  '  He  who 
is  believing  in  me,  even  if  he  may  die,  shall  live  ;  and  no  one  who  is 
living  and  believing  in  me  shall  die  unto  the  age.'  To  make  the 
sense  clear.  Young  renders /j^.s  .  .  .  on  me  apof/u/nci  =  ''  exevy- 
one  ...  in  no  wise  shall  die,'  by  '  no  one  .  .  .  shall  die.'  In  other 
respects  his  translation  is  strictly  literal :  eis  ton  aidna  is  undoubtedly 
'  unto  the  age,'  eis  signifying,  in  connection  with  time,  '  until '  or 
'  up  to.'  The  life  is  '  age-during,'  not  endless  :  its  term  will  be  fixed 
by  the  constitution  of  our  nature,  by  the  decree  of  God,  and  Jesus 
assures  us  that,  we  being  under  his  guidance,  it  will  not  be  cut 
short  as  in  the  case  of  the  life  inherited  from  Adam.  This  promise 
of  Jesus  may  be  regarded  under  two  aspects.  It  seems  to  be 
generally  assumed  that  the  life  here  spoken  of  is  an  arbitrary  gift,  to 
be  bestowed  or  withheld  by  Jesus  according  to  the  possession  or  non- 
possession  of  faith  in  him.  This  is  to  individualise  and  narrow  the 
promise,  instead  of  to  generalise  and  broaden  it :  the  gift  thus 
becomes  in  each  case  a  miraculous  endowment,  an  exercise  of  super- 
natural power.  But  why  should  the  declaration  of  Jesus  be  taken  in 
that  sense  ?  He  does  but  unfold  the  divine  will  and  purposes.  He 
steps  forth  as  the  leader,  the  prince,  the  Messiah  of  mankind, 
discloses  the  fact  of  human  resurrection,  and  assures  to  believers  in 
iiim  the  prolongation  to  its  utmost  limit  of  the  life  which  lies 
beyond.  If  we  ask — How  ?  surely  it  must  be  by  his  guiding  and 
protective  influence,  by  regulating  the  lives  of  his  followers,  and 
bringing  them  into  harmony  with  the  laws  of  God,  of  nature  and  of 
society.  That  is  the  aspect  under  which  Jesus  himself  has  presented 
,  the  matter.  '  My  sheep  hear  my  voice,  and  I  know  them,  and  they 
'  follow  me  :  and  ( Young)  life  age-during  I  give  to  them,  and  they 
shall  not  perish — to  the  age,  and  no  one  shall  pluck  them  out  of  my 
hand.'  A  promise  going  beyond  this  was  once  given  by  Jesus,  when 
he  said,  '  This  is  the  will  of  Him  who  sent  me,  that  everv  one  who  is 


PART  IT.]         A    STUDY    OF    THE    FOUR    GOSPELS.  129 

b:,'liol(liri<>-  the  Son,  and  bclievinj:^  in  him,  may  liave  life  n.u,-c-during, 

and  I  will  raise  him  np  in  the  last  day.'     Taking'  those  words  in  the 

order  in  which  they  stand,  the  resurrection  'in  the  last  day'  by 

the  power  of  Jesus,  is  subsequent  to  the  'life  agc-during  : '  a  second 

resurrection  is  here  foretold.     But  in  the  discourse  with  Martha,  it 

was  she,  not  Jesus,  who  spoke  about  Lazarus  rising  again  '  in  the 

resurrection  at  the  last  day.'     Jesus  called  her  mind  away  from  that 

high  mystery  ;  enougli  for  her  to  be  assured  of  the  lower  doctrine  of 

an  age-during  life  beyond  the  grave,  and  her  positive  '  I  know'  must 

take  the  simpler  form  of  '  I  believe  : '  '  Belicvesfc  thou  this  ?  '  was  the  n  J"i"i  '-^o 

enquiry  with  wliich  Jesus  closed.     The  reply  of  j\Iartha  indicated 

rather  a  confidence  in  his  words  than  a  full  comprehension  of  them. 

'  She  saith  unto  him,  Yea,  Lord  (Sir — Young)  :  1  have  believed  that      >•    -'' 

t'lou  art  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  God,  cren  he  that  cometh  into  the 

world.'     Alford  quotes  Euthymius  as  follows  :  '  That  He  spoke  great 

things  about  PLms'jlf  she  knew  :  but  in  what  sense  He  spoke  them, 

she  did  not  know  :  and  therefore  when  asked  one  thing,  she  replies 

another.' 

Martha  now  hastened  to  inform  her  sister  of  the  arrival  of  Jesus, 
and  of  the  fact  that  he  had  expressed  a  wish  to  see  lier.  But  she  did 
this  warily,  doul)tless  out  of  regard  to  his  safety,  knowing  that  his 
enemies  were  round  about.  '  And  when  she  had  said  this,  she  went  "  ^"^ 
away,  and  called  j\Iary  her  sister  secretly,  saying  (or,  her  sister,  saying 
secretly).  The  Master  (or,  Teacher)  is  here,  and  calleth  thee.'  This 
is  quite  consistent  with  the  previous  notification  to  Mary  of  the 
approach  of  .fesus.  Martha  had  gone  to  meet  him  on  the  first  news 
of  his  coming,  and  now^  not  only  confirms  the  report  but  announces 
that  he  is  actually  at  hand.  Young  renders  :  '  The  Teacher  is 
present,  and  calleth  for  thee.'  Not  an  instant  did  Mary  lose  in 
obeying  the  call.  '  And  she,  when  she  heard  it,  arose  quickly,  and  -  ^'^ 
went  unto  him.'  Even  then  Jesus  had  not  reached  the  village, 
having  remained  outside  it  in  the  place  whither  Martha  had  hastened 
to  meet  him.  '(Now  Jesus  was  not  yet  come  into  the  village,  but  w^as  „  30 
still  in  the  place  where  Martha  met  him).'  Everything  indicates  the 
caution  and  secrecy  which  naturally  sprang  out  of  their  anxiety  for 
the  safety  of  Jesus.  But  the  precautions  taken  did  not  avail.  The 
hasty  departure  of  Mary  was  noticed  by  the  Jews,  who  were  acting 
tlie  part  of  comforters  :  they  guessed  that  she  had  gone  to  the  grave, 
there  to  indulge  in  an  outburst  of  grief,  and  therefore  they  resolved 
to  follow  her.  '  The  Jews  then  which  were  with  her  in  the  house,  -•  ^i 
and  were  comforting  her,  w-hen  they  saw  jMary,  that  she  rose  up 
quickly  and  w'ent  out,  followed  her,  supposing  that  she  was  going 
unto  the  tomb  to  weep  (Gr.  wail)  there.'  Their  notion  of  comfort 
in  bereavement  appears  to  have  been  the  very  opposite  of  ours. 
"\Ye  are  accustomed  to  repress,  assuage,  check,  reprove  even,  any 
violent  demonstration  of  grief ;  but  the  Jewish  habit  was  to  weep 
with  them  that  wept,  minstrels  being  engaged  to  add  their  sorrowful 
melodies  to  the  lamentations  of  the  mourners. 

When  ]\Liry  reached  the  presence  of  Jesus  she  fell  prostrate  at  his 
feet, — it  may  ha\-e  been  as  a  mark  of  re\'erence,  or  that  her  faltering 
strength  could  no  longer  uphold  her.  The  only  words  she  could  find 
were  those  with  which  Martha  had  first  greeted  him,  and  which  must 
have  formed  the  burden  of  the  two  sisters'  reflections  throughout  the 


130  THE    KING    AND    THE    KINGDOM:  [part  n. 

last  fews  days.  '  Mary  therefore,  when  she  came  Avhere  Jesus  was, 
and  saw  him,  fell  down  at  his  feet,  saying  unto  him,  Lord  (Sir — 
Young)  if  thou  hadst  been  here,  my  brother  had  not  died.'  It  was 
a  trying  scene,  and  its  effect  upon  Jesus  was  very  marked  and 
peculiar.  '  When  Jesus  therefore  saw  her  weeping  (Gr.  wailing), 
and  the  Jews  also  weeping  (Gr.  wailing;  which  came  with  her,  he 
groaned  in  the  spirit  (or,  was  moved  with  indignation  in  the  spirit), 
and  was  troubled  (Gr.  troubled  himself),  and  said,  Where  have  ye 
laid  him?'  Alford  explains:  'The  word  rendered  by  the  A.  V. 
(jroancd  can  bear  but  one  meaning, — the  expression  of  indignatmi 
and  reVulce,  not  of  sorroir.  This  has  been  acknowledged  by  all  the 
expositors  who  have  paid  any  attention  to  the  usage  of  the  word.' 
It  is  clear  therefore  that  the  marginal  reading  introduced  by  the 
Revisers  must  be  adopted  as  correct,  '  was  moved  with  indignation  in 
the  spirit.'  Alford  modifies  his  own  assertion  of  '  indignation  '  and 
'  rebuke  '  by  saying,  '  I  think  the  meaning  to  be,  that  Jesus,  with  the 
tears  of  sympathy  already  rising  and  overcoming  His  speech,  diccked 
ihem,  so  as  to  he  able  to  s])ca/c  the  words  following  .  .  .  Thus  Beugel: 
"  Jesus  for  the  present  austerely  repressed  his  tears."  '  That  con- 
jecture is  not  satisfactory,  and  does  not  seem  to  meet  the  case  :  the 
mere  repression  of  emotion  is  not  to  be  confounded  with  indignation 
or  rebuke.  The  intense,  heartfelt  wail  of  ^lary,  and  the  conventional, 
perfunctory,  hypocritical  wail  of  the  fJews  were  well  calculated  to 
arouse  opposite  feelings  in  the  breast  of  Jesus.  Alford  admits  : 
'Meyer's  explanation  deserves  mention  :  that  our  Lord  was  indignant 
at  seeing  the  Jews,  his  bitter  enemies,  mingling  their  hypocritical 
tears  with  the  true  ones  of  the  bereaved  sisters.'  That  was  like 
Jesus,  and  worthy  of  him.  Nothing  ever  stirred  his  indignation  so 
much  as  hypocrisy,  Avhether  conscious  or  unconscious,  or  so  re- 
peatedly drew  forth  the  expression  of  his  measureless  alJiorrenco. 
In  reply  to  his  question,  '  Where  have  ye  laid  him  ?  '  '  They  say 
unto  him,  Lord  (Sir — Young),  come  and  see.'  The  trouble  which 
had  manifested  itself  in  the  demeanour  of  Jesus  now  reached  its 
climax,  and  found  vent  in  an  outburst  of  tears.  '  Jesus  wept.' 
Even  on  the  way  to  the  grave  the  Jews  could  not  abstain  from 
■  criticism  of  Jesus.  '  The  Jews  therefore  said.  Behold  how  he  loved 
him  !  But  some  of  them  said,  Could  not  this  man,  which  opened 
the  eyes  of  him  that  was  blind,  have  caused  that  this  man  also  should 
not  die  ? '  At  these  uncalled  for  and  unseemly  comments,  the  signs 
of  unspoken,  repressed,  indignation  again  showed  themselves  in 
Jesus.  '  Jesus  therefore  again  groaning  in  himself  (or,  being  moved 
Avith  indignation  in  himself)  cometh  to  the  tomb.'  It  was  a  cave, 
and  against  the  entrance,  which  w\as  probably  horizontal  (Alford),  a 
stone  had  been  placed.  '  Now  it  was  a  cave,  and  a  stone  lay  against 
(or,  upon)  it.'  Jesus  requested  that  the  stone  might  be  removed. 
'Jisas  saith.  Take  ye  away  the  stone.'  Martha,  always  impulsive 
and  foremost,  ventured  to  expostulate.  Four  days  having  passed,  the 
work  of  corruption  must  have  set  in.  '  Martha,  the  sister  of  him 
that  was  dead,  saith  unto  him,  Lord  (Sir — Young),  by  this  time  he 
stinketh  :  for  he  hath  been  dead  four  days.'  Tischeudorf  and  Young 
do  not  insert  the  italicised  word  '  dead.'  The  former  has  :  '  he  is 
ibur  days  gone ; '  the  latter,  literally,  '  it  is  four  days.'  Jesus 
reminded  Martha  of  an  assurance  he  had  previously  given  her.     It 


I'ART  II.]         A    STUDY   OF    THE    FOUR    GOSPELS,  131 

was  for  him  to  act,  and  for  her  to  have  confidence  in  hira.     '  Jesus  i^  Jo^'"  ^^ 

saith  unto  her.  Said  I  not  unto  thee,  that,  if  thou  behevedst,  tliou 

shoLildest  see  the  glory  of  God?'     Then  the  re(j[uest  of  Jesus  was 

ooniphed  with.     '  80  they  took  away  tlie  stone.'     Tlie  revisers  and      „    n 

Tischendorf,  following  the  two  oldest  .MSS.,  have  omitted,  '  from  the 

place  where  the  deadVas  laid.'     Iit>w  strange  and  solemn  must  liave 

been  the  scene  !  What  an  awe-struck  hush  of  wonder  and  expectation, 

while  Jesus  stood  before  the  opened  tomb  !    Turning  his  eyes  he.iven- 

wards,  he  lifted  up  his  voice  in  thanksgiving.     '  And  Jesus  lifted  up      ,,    41, 4: 

his  eyes,  and  said,  Father,   I  thank  thee  that   thou  heardest  me.' 

Alford  notes  :   '  When  he   prayed,  does  not   appear.      Probably   in 

Pertca,  before  the  declaration  in  verse  4.'     Having  uttered  those  few 

words  to  his  heavenly  Father,  Jesus  instantly  ex})ressed  his  reason 

for  doing  so.     Neithi>r  the  j^-ayer  nor  the  heaving  were  exct'])tioiuil. 

'And  T  knew  that  thou  hearest  me  always.'     But  for  the  sake  of  all      ..    ■*- 

now  standing  about  him,  that  they  might  be  convinced  of  his  divine 

mission,  Jesus  had  prefaced  the  miracle  he  was  about  to  perform  l)y 

this  reverential  acknowledgment  of  the  divine  power  vouchsafed  to 

him  :  '  but  because  of  the  multitude  which  staudeth  around  I  said  it,      -    ■*- 

that  they  may  believe  that  thou  didst  send  me.'     Then,  raising  his 

voice,  so  that  it  rang  out  sharp  and  clear  enough  to  pierce  into  the 

cave  and  rouse  one  simply  sleeping  there,  Jesus  commanded  Lazarus 

to  come  forth.    '  And  when  he  had  thus  spoken,  he  cried  with  a  loud      ..    ^3 

voice,  Lazarus,  come  forth.'     AVhat  a  word  was  that  !     And  what  a 

marvel  followed  on  its  utterance  !     The  body  0    the  dead  and  buried 

nnan  was  seen  to  issue  from  the  tomb,  not  free  and  unimpeded,  but 

the  hands  and  feet  still  circled  with  their  bandages,  and  the  face  with 

the  napkin  which  had  been  wrapped  round  it.     '  He  that  was  dead      -    ■*■* 

{Jitcralhj,  iiad  been  dead)   came  forth,  Ijound  hand  and  foot  with 

grave-clothes  (or,  grave-bands) ;  and  his  face  was  bound  aljout  with 

a   napkin.''      Alford   notes :    '  The   word   rendered    (jravc-dothes  is 

explained  to  mean  a  sort  of  band  of  rush  or  tow,  used  to  swathe 

infants,  and  to  bind  up  the  dead.     It  does  not  appear  whether  the 

bands  were  wound  about  each  limb,  as  in  the  Egj'ptian  mummies,  so 

as  merely  to  impede  motion. — or  were  loosely  wrapped  round  both  feet 

and  both  hands,  so  as  to  hinder  any  free  movement  altogether.     The 

latter  seems  most  probable,  and  has  been  supposed  by  many.     Basil 

-speaks  of  the  dounil  man  coming   forth  from   the  sepulchre,   as   a 

miracle  in  a  miracle  :  and  ancient  pictures  represent  Lazarus  gliding 

forth  from  the  tomb,  not  stepping  :  which  apparently  is  right.     The 

napkin,  or  handkerchief,  appears  to  have  tied  up  his  chin.'     As  the 

awe-struck  lieholders  gazed  upon  the  apparition,  the  voice  of  Jesus 

was   again   heard.      'Jesus   saith  unto  them,  Loose  him,  and   let      >■    ■*■* 

him  go.' 

The  evangelist  makes  not  a  word  of  comment  on  this  astounding 
miracle.  Jesus  himself  alluded  to  it  as  'the  glory  of  God,'  and  as  ,•  -lo 
'  for  the  glory  of  God,  that  the  Son  of  God  may  be  glorified  thereby.'  „  i 
The  evolvemeut  and  raanifestation  of  life,  the  triumph  over  death, 
the  arrest  of  decay,  the  reorganisation  of  materialism, — we  can  con- 
ceive no  higher  powers  of  Deity,  Life,  Eulership  :  these  constitute 
the  very  essence  of  the  true  idea  of  God.  What  does  the  miracle  of 
the  resurrection  of  Lazarus  amount  to  ?  His  earthly  life  had  closed. 
Had  he  then  ceased  to  be  ?     In  the  ordinary  course  of  nature  his 


132  THE    KING    AND    THE   KINGDOM:  [part  ir. 

body  could  never  again  become  reanimated,  but  would  have  turned 
to  earth.  No  Lazarus  would  then  have  walked  visibly  again  among- 
men,  known  and  recognised  of  them.  Jesus  called  his  death  a  sleep, 
but  that  was  foreseeing  what  would  happen,  knowing  that  he  would 
'  awake  him  out  of  sleep.'  Yet  he  literally  and  really  died  :  '  Jesus 
therefore  said  unto  them  plainly,  Lazarus  is  dead.'  Nevertheless 
there  still  existed  a  Lazarus  to  whom  Jesus  lifted  up  his  voice  aud 
cried  aloud, '  Come  forth.'  That  was  a  true  call :  it  would  not  have 
been  uttered  without  need  or  reason.  How  Jesus  shrank  from 
useless  words  was  shown  the  very  instant  previously,  when  he 
explained  his  thanksgiving  to  have  been  spoken  for  the  sake  of  those 
standing  by.  That  Lazarus  was  there,  within  reach  of  the  voice,  we 
may  be  sure.  How  he  came  to  be  there,  must  remain  a  mystery :  as 
also  whether  in  the  same  body,  or  in  some  other  invisible  form,  or 
altogether  formless.  We  know  nothing  about  the  '  disembodied 
spirit,'  of  which  men  sometimes  speak  as  a  matter  of  course.  There 
were,  in  fact,  two  miracles  :  the  bringing  back  of  Lazarus  to  the 
living,  and  the  snatching  of  him  from  the  dead.  In  order  that  the 
earthly  life  might  be  renewed,  the  continuity  of  the  heavenly  life 
was  broken.  The  appointed  mode  of  existence  after  death  was  inter- 
fered with  equally,  whether  we  suppose  the  'unclothed'  soul  of 
Lazarus  to  have  been  restored  to  his  former  body,  or  his  '  spiritual 
body '  to  have  been  forsaken,  dissolved,  or  merged,  when  his  lleshly- 
tabernacle  was  re-entered  and  reanimated. 

'  When  Lazarus  left  his  clianiel-cave, 
And  home  to  Mary's  house  returu'd, 
Was  this  demanded — if  he  }-earn'd 
To  liear  her  weeping  by  his  grave  •' 

'  "  Where  wert  thou,  brother,  tliose  four  days?  " 
There  lives  no  record  of  repl}', 
AVhich  telling  what  it  is  to  die, 
Had  surely  added  praise  to  praise. 

'  From  ever}-  house  the  neighbours  met, 

The  streets  were  filled  with  joyful  sound, 
A  solemn  gladness  even  crown'd 
The  purple  brows  of  Olivet. 

'  Behold  a  man  raised  up  b}^  Christ ! 
The  rest  remaineth  unreveal'd  ; 
He  told  it  not ;  or  something  seal'd 
The  lips  of  that  Evangelist.'  * 

'Where  wert  thou,  brother,  those  four  days?'  is  a  question  to- 
i.>uu  -.       which  our  existence  in  this  world  forbids  the  answer.     '  Except  a 

man  be  born  of  water  and  the  Spirit,  he  cannot  enter  into  the  king- 
i.  tor.  Ml  Jom  of  Clod.'    '  Flesh  and  blood  cannot  inherit  the  kingdom  of  God.'" 

The  new  life  demands  a  new  incarnation.  The  faith  of  the  apostle 
,i.  Cor.  1-3  Paul  enabled  him  to  grasp  and  elucidate  this  mystery.      '  For  we 

know  that  if  the  earthly  house  of  our  tabernacle  (or,  bodily  frame)' 

be  dissolved,  we  have  a  building  from  God,  a  house  not  made  withi 

*  Tennyson's  "In  Memoriam." 


PART  II.]         A    STUDY    OF    THE    FOUR    GOSPELS.  133 

hands,  eternal  (an'c-darint;- — Youiiii,'),  in  the  heavens.  For  verily  in 
this  we  ,<>'roan,  longin<;'  to  be  clothed  upon  with  our  habitation  wliich 
is  from  heaven :  if  so  be  that  being"  clothed  we  shall  not  be  found 
naked.'  The  resurrection  of  Lazarus  had  been  foreseen  by  Jesus, 
and  we  make  no  visionary  supposition  in  assuming  that  invisible 
agents  had  anticipated  and  arranged  with  res])ect  to  it,  as  about  the 
birth  of  Jesus  and  his  own  uprising  from  the  tomb.  The  idea  of 
Martha  that  putrefaction  must  necessarily  have  set  in,  may  have  been 
contrary  to  the  fact,  it  being  more  reasonable  to  l)elieve  that  the  body 
was  preserved  from  decay,  than  that  all  traces  of  it  were  instan- 
taneously and  miraculously  obliterated.  Nor  is  it  fanciful  to  bear  in 
mind  the  fact  that  the  performance  of  the  miracle  had  been  inten- 
tionally timed  by  Jesus.  He  had  deliberately  delayed  his  departure  ii.jnim.i 
two  days  :  it  was  no  mere  chance  that  he  arrived  when  three  full  days 
had  elapsed  since  the  decease.  There  must  have  been  some  reason, 
hidden  from  us,  why  Jesus,  whenever  he  foretold  his  own  resurrec- 
tion, prognosticated  that  it  would  happen  '  after  three  days,'  some 
occult  reason  why  it  did  take  place  after  that  interval.  The  second 
birth,  like  the  first  birth,  must  have  its  appointed  sequences  and 
])eriod  ;  there  must  be  a  graduated  development  into  the  heavenly 
life,  as  there  was  into  the  earthly  life  ;  the  incarnation  of '  water  and 
sjiirit '  is  doubtless  as  natural  a  process  as  the  incarnation  of '  flesh  and 
blood.'  The  knowledge  of  Jesus  with  respect  to  these  matters  was 
more  than  human  ;  the  laAvs  of  life  and  death  were  within  his  cog- 
nizance ;  he  knew  when  and  how  to  seize  the  right  moment  for  the 
working  of  his  power;  he  could  call  back  at  once  the  soul  of  the 
damsel  ncwly-dej)arted,  but  in  the  case  of  Lazarus  he  saw  fit  to  delay 
three  days,  and  he  was  aware  from  the  first  that  the  same  lapse  of 
time  would  have  to  occur  in  the  resurrection  of  himself.  These  facts 
arc  neither  arbitrary  nor  meaningless,  and  we  do  well  to  ponder  the 
hints  afforded  us  with  respect  to  the  extension  and  perpetuation  in 
supermundane  matters  of  that  regularity  and  spontaneity  in  the  laws 
of  growth  and  change  which  prevail  throughout  the  only  world  with 
which  we  are  as  yet  familiar. 

On  many  of  the  Jews  who  beheld  the  miracle  its  effect  was 
immediate  and  unmistakable  :  they  could  not  l:>ut  express  their  faith 
in  Jesus.  '  Many  therefore  of  the  Jews,  which  came  to  Mary  and  „  45 
beheld  that  which  he  did,  believed  in  him.'  The  Eevisers  have 
followed  the  Vatican  and  Alexandrine  MS8.,  by  inserting  'that 
which '  instead  of  '  the  things  which,'  but  Tischendorf  retains  the 
latter,  which  is  the  reading  of  the  oldest  MS.,  the  Sinaitic. 

Reports  of  the  miracle  could  not  fail  to  be  carried  to  the  enemies 
of  Jesus.  '  But  some  of  them  went  away  to  the  Pharisees,  and  told  ,,  -n; 
them  the  things  which  Jesus  had  done.'  Alford  observes  :  '  Wc; 
must  take  care  rightly  to  understand  this.  In  the  last  verse,  it  is  not 
maivj  of  the  Jews  irhich  had  come,  but  many  of  the  Jeics,  viz.,  those 
irliich  had  come,  "  many  ....  to  wit  ....  tJicse  that  came.''''  All 
these  believed  on  Him.  Then  some  of  them,  viz.,  of  those  which  had 
come,  and  believed,  went,  &c.'  Alford  adds  :  '  The  evangelist  is  very 
simple,  and  at  the  same  time  very  consistent,  in  his  use  of  jMr//f/es: 
almost  throughout  his  Gospel,  the  great  subject,  the  manifestation  of 
the  Glory  of  Christ,  is  carried  onward  by  '  then,'  or  '  therefore,' 
Avhereas  '  but '  as  generally  prefaces  the  development  of  the  antagonist 


134  THE    KING    AND    THE    KINGDOM:  [part  ii. 

manifestation  of  hatred  and  rejection  of  him.'  Without  undcr- 
vahiing  the  importance  of  such  minute  criticisms,  Alford  seems  to 
carry  his  deduction  too  far  where  he  says :  '  The  hut  certainly 
shews  that  this  was  done  with  a  hostile  intent.'  "We  may  consider 
the  '  but '  to  refer  to  the  result,  not  to  the  intent ;  this  will  still  agree 
with  Alford's  note  on  verse  27  :  '  Sfc.  John  seldom  uses  bid  as  a  mere 
copula,  but  generally  as  expressing  a  contrast,'  On  receiving  an 
account  of  the  miracle,  the  Jewish  rulers  called  a  council  to  consider 
what  steps   they  should  take  with  respect  to  Jesus  and  his  works. 

11  John  47  '  The  chief  priests  therefore  and  the  Pharisees  gathered  a  council, 
and  said,  What  do  we  ?  for  this  man  doeth  many  signs.'  The 
growing  influence  of  Jesus  must  be  counteracted  in  some  way.  But 
why  ?  What  was  to  be  dreaded  from  it  ?  This  was  their  argument, 
„  4s  their  ground  of  action.  '  If  we  leave  him  thus  alone,  all  men  will 
believe  on  him  :  and  the  Romans  will  come  and  take  away  both  our 
place  and  our  nation.'  Luther  renders  the  closing  words  '  Land  und 
Leute,'  '  land  and  people.'  Could  any  idea  be  more  visionary,  more 
baseless,  more  utterly  contrary  to  the  fact  ?  The  doctrine  of  Jesus 
was  for  the  salvation  of  the  people.  We  know  that  to  its  rejection 
he  attributed  the  woe  and  destruction  which  impended  over  Jeru- 

I'.i Luke 4-2-  salcm.  'He  saw  the  city  and  wept  over  it,  saying.  If  tbou  hadst 
■**  known  in  this  thy  day,  even  thou,  the  things  which  belong  unto 
peace  !  but  now  they  are  hid  from  thine  eyes.  For  the  days  shall 
come  upon  thee,  when  thine  enemies  shall  cast  up  a  bank  about  thee, 
and  compass  thee  round,  and  keep  thee  in  on  every  side,  and  shall 
dash  thee  to  the  ground,  and  thy  children  within  thee  ;  and  they 
shall  not  leave  in  thee  one  stone  upon  another :  because  thou 
knewest  not  the  time  of  thy  visitation.'  Jesus  foresaw  the  very 
same  evils  which  were  apj^rehended  by  these  Jewish  rulers,  but  he 
and  they  attributed  them  to  precisely  opposite  causes.  They  dreaded 
any  radical  change,  any  interference  with  the  existing  order  of 
things,  any  Reform  which  was  not  inaugurated  and  directed  by 
themselves.  Alford  observes  :  '  The  word  our  (our  place  and  nation) 
is  emphatic,  detecting  the  real  cause  of  their  anxiety.  Respecting 
this  man's  pretensions,  they  do  not  pretend  to  decide  :  all  they  know- 
is  that  if  he  is  to  go  on  thus,  their  standing  is  gone.'  One  of  them, 
and  he  the  most  eminent,  disparaged  the  opinion  which  had  been 

11  joiiu  4it,  expressed,  which  was  not  founded  upon  any  actual  knowledge.  '  But 
''^  a  certain  one  of  them,  Caiaphas,  being  high  priest  that  year,  said 
unto  them,  Ye  know  nothing  at  all.'  And  in  speculating  on  con- 
tingencies and  probabilities,  they  overlooked  the  fact  that  it  would  be 
better  the  Romans  should  find  one  popular  leader  whom  they  could 
hold  responsible  and  put  to  death,  than  that  the  whole  nation  should 
be  visited  with  the  consequences  of  rebellion.  Apart  from  any 
subsequent  explanation,  that  might  seem  to  be  the  import  of  the 
„  6(1  words  :  '  nor  do  ye  take  account  that  it  is  expedient  for  you  that  one 
man  should  die  for  the  people,  and  that  the  whole  nation  perish  not.' 
The  Authorised  Version  has  'for  us,'  which  is  altered  by  the 
Revisers  and  Tischendorf  into  '  for  you,'  agreeing  with  the  Vatican 
MS.  The  Sinaitic  MS.  omits  both  w^ords.  But  the  evangelist,  or 
the  com]nler,  has  inserted  an  explanation,  which  places  the  passage 
„  51  outside  the  rules  of  ordinary  interpretation.  '  Now  this  he  said  not 
of  himself:  but  being  high  priest  that  year,  he  prophesied.'  .  .  .  The 


PART  II.]         A    STUDY    OF    THE    FOUR    GOSPELS.  135 

words  '  not  of  himseltV  imply  some  influence  ovor-rnlin,<>-  the  speaker. 
Altbril  observes  :  '  Thure  certainly  was  a  belief,  probal)ly  arising  origi- 
nally from  the  nse  of  the  Urim  and  Thnmmim,  that  the  High  Priest, 
and'indeed  c\-ery  priest,  had  some  knowledge  of  dreams  and  utterance 
of  prophecy.  Philo  the  Jew  says,  "  A  true  priest  is  ipso  farh  a 
prophet."  'That  this  belief  existed,  may  account  for  the  expression 
here  ;  Avhich  however  does  not  conflrm  it  in  all  cases,  but  asserts  the 
fact  that  the  Spirit  in  this  case  made  nse  of  him  as  High  Priest,  for 
this  purpose,'  The  prophecy  of  Caiaphas  is  thus  described:  'thatu  Joim  m. 
Jesus  should  die  for  the  nation  ;  and  not  for  the  nation  only,  but  ''' 

that  he  might  also  gather  together  into  one  the  children  of  God  that 
are  scattered  abroad.'  The  word  'prophecy'  does  not  necessarily 
denote  the  foretelling  of  iuture  events,  but  may  stand  for  any  kind  of 
high  s])iritual  teaching.  It  is  not  stated  that  Caiaphas  delivered  his 
prophecy  b^'fore  the  council :  it  seems  rather  to  be  implied  that  in 
his  official  capacity  as  high  priest  he  had  broached  the  doctrine  that 
the  death  of  Jesus'  wouUrbe  for  the  welfare  of  the  nation,  and  would 
lead  to  the  uniflcation  of  the  dispersed  Israelites,  '  This  said  he  not 
of  himself  : '  the  deep  meaning  of  his  saying  was  hidden  from  him, 
and  the  evangelist,  or  the  compiler,  elucidates  it  for  us.  The 
opinion  expressed  by  Caiaphas  appears  to  have  been  regarded  as  _a 
counsel,  if  not  a  justification  of  the  death  of  Jesus,  for  the  result  is 
summed  up  thus:  '80  from  that  day  forth  they  took  counsel  that  -  -^^ 
they  might  put  him  to  death.' 

An  expression  used  in  verses  4',)  and  51  of  this  chapter  has  led  Mr. 
Matthew  Arnold  to  express  the  following  opinion.*  'Twice  the 
fourth  (iospel  speaks  of  Caiaphas  as  "high-priest  of  that  year,"  as  if 
the  Jewish  high-priesthood  had  been  at  that  time  a  yearly  office, 
Avhich  it  was  not.  It  is  a  mistake  a  foreigner  might  perfectly  well 
have  made,  but  hardly  a  Jew.  It  is  like  talking  of  an  American 
President  as  "  President  of  that  year,"  as  if  the  American  Presidency 
Avere  a  yearly  office.  An  American  could  never  adopt,  one  thinks, 
such  a  way  of  speaking.'  The  conclusion  drawn  by  Mr.  Matthew 
Arnold  from  this  supposed  error,  is  that  the  Gospel  was  not  written 
by  the  Apostle  John  :  '  St,  John  cannot  have  written  it  for  the  same 
reason  that  he  cannot  have  .  ,  .  made  the  high-priesthood  of 
Caiaphas  a  yearly  office,'  Let  us  examine  this  objection,  Alford's 
note  on  the  passage  is  as  follows  :  '  In  the  words  that  year,  there  is  no 
intimation  conveyed  that  the  High  Priesthood  was  changed  every 
year,  which  it  was  not :  but  we  must  understand  the  words  as 
directing  attention  to  that  (remarkable)  year,  without  any  reference 
to  time  past  or  to  come.  That  year  of  yreat  events  had  (^aiaphas  as 
its  High  Priest.'  That  idea  seems  weak  and  forced,  so  we  will  reject 
it.  Still  it  does  not  follow  that  the  expression  '  high  priest  that 
year,'  which  is  the  reading  of  the  Eevised  Version,  denotes  a  yearly 
change  in  the  office  :  it  may  simply  indicate  that  the  change  had 
occurred  that  year, — that  Caiaphas  had  that  year  entered  upon  his 
term  of  office.  But  Mr,  Arnold  obviates  that  solution  by  introducing 
the  word  '  of : '  '  high-priest  of  that  year.'  And  we  are  bound  to 
admit  that  he  is  right,  on  the  authority  of  Tischendorf  and  Young, 
both  of  whom  insert  the  word  '  of,'     That  being  admitted,  we  can 

"  God  and  the  Bible.     The  fourth  Gospel  from  Without," 


136 


THE    KING    AND    THE    KINGDOM: 


[PAPvT    II. 


now  fairly  raise  and  face  the  question.  Does  the  writer  of  tlie  Gospel 
show  io;norance  upon  the  point  ?  Had  he  less  knowledge  about  it 
than  Mr.  Ai-nold  has  ?  Before  deciding  in  favour  of  the  latter,  we 
must  refer  to  other  allusions  to  the  subject  in  John's  Gospel.  Its 
author,  having  previously  stated  that  Caiaphas  was  '  high-priest  of 
that  year,'  nevertheless  tells  us  that  when  Jesus  had  been  seized  and 
bound,  the  officers  of  the  Jews  '  led  him  to  Annas  first.'  And  he 
explains  their  reason  for  doing  so  :  '  for  he  Avas  father-in-law  to 
Caiaphas,  which  was  high  priest  that  year,'  rendered  again  by 
Tischendorf  and  Young,  'high  priest  of  that  year.'  The  expression 
deemed  so  inapplicable  is  here  for  the  third  time  repeated,  but  so  far 
is  the  writer  from  being  ignorant,  that  he  shows  the  most  minute 
knowledge  of  the  subject,  actually  stating  the  relationship  between 
the  two  men.  Afterwards  he  tells  us  :  '  Annas  therefore  sent  him 
bound  unto  Caiaphas  the  high  priest.'  All  this  indicates  a  con- 
temporaneous familiarity  with  the  facts,  which  were  not  a  little 
remarkable.  Why  should  Jesus  have  been  sent  to  Annas  fii'sfc  ? 
What  could  the  father-in-law  of  the  high  priest  have  to  do  with  the 
matter?  By  Avhat  right  did  Annas  send  back  the  prisoner  bound  ? 
The  evangelist  did  not  care  to  explain.  He  could  not  anticipate 
that  eighteen  centuries  later  a  scholarly  critic  would  rise  up,  and 
argue  that  he  did  not  understand  Avhat  he  was  writing  about.  He 
told  the  circumstance  simply  and  naturally,  and  what  he  stated  has 
been  confirmed  and  elucidated  by  another  evangelist.  Luke  mentions, 
as  a  well-known  historical  fact,  '  the  high-priesthood  of  Annas  and 
Caiaphas.'  Obviously  the  office  at  that  time  was  held  conjointly, 
which  was  quite  as  much  out  of  the  ordinary  course  as  that  it  should 
be  yearly.  What  more  likely  than  that  the  two  high  priests  should 
have  acted  alternately,  year  by  year  ?  That  simple  and  probable 
conjecture  makes  everything  clear  :  Luke's  narrative  agrees  with 
John's,  and  the  deference  shown  to  Annas,  and  his  interference, 
Caiaphas  nevertheless  having  to  adjudicate,  as  well  as  the  expression 
'  high  priest  of  that  year,' — all  these  things  agree  together  and 
corroborate  the  accuracy  and  fulness  of  the  writer's  knowledge. 
The  assumption  of  Mr.  Matthew  Arnold  is  as  hasty  as  it  is 
positive  ;  however  plausible  at  first  sight,  the  tenor  of  the  narrative 
is  opposed  to  it. 

Li  consequence  of  the  determined  hostility  of  the  chief  priests  and 
Pharisees,  Jesus  again  Avithdrew  from  open  intercourse  with  the 
inhabitants  of  Judsea.  He  retired  to  a  city  in  the  country  bordering 
the  wilderness,  and  there  continued  with  his  disciples.  '  Jesus 
therefore  walked  no  more  openly  among  the  Jews,  but  departed 
thence  into  the  country  near  to  the  wilderness,  into  a  city  called 
Ephraim  ;  and  there  he  tarried  with  the  disciples.'  The  Authorised 
Version  has  '  his  disciples,'  which  is  now  altered  to  '  the  disciples,'  to 
accord  with  the  two  oldest  ILS.S, 


The  Sermon  on  the  mount,  as  recorded  in  Matthew's  narrative,  is 
much  fuller  than  in  Luke's  account  of  it  ;  and  among  the  portions 
contained  in  the  former,  but  omitted  from  the  latter,  is  the  Lord's 
prayer.  Luke  introduces  that  subsequently,  and  he  obviously  refers 
to  a  different  occasion,  when  the  prayer  was  repeated  by  Jesus  in  an 
11  Luke  1, 2  abridged  form.     '  And  it  came  to  pass  as  he  was  praying  in  a  certain 


PART  II.]         A  STUDY    OF    THE    FOUR    GOSFFLS.  137 

pliice,  that  when  lie  ceased,  one  of  liis  disciples  said  unto  him,  Lord 
(Sir — Young),  teacli  us  to  pray,  even  as  -lolin  also  taught  his 
disciples.  And  he  said  unto  them,  When  ye  pray,  say  .  .  .'  The 
closing  doxology  which  stands  in  the  Authorised  Version  of  Matthew, 
is  omitted  by  the  Revisers,  not  being  in  the  two  oldest  MSS.,  and  it 
is  not  in  Luke.  Let  us  compare,  clause  by  clause,  the  forms  given 
by  the  two  evangelists. 

6  Matthew  !)— 13.  j  11  Luke  2— 4. 

(1)  Our  Father.  j   Father. 

(2)  AVhich  art  in  heaven.  I    C)mitted. 
(o)  Hallowed  be  thy  name.  i   The  same. 
^4)  Thy  kingdom  come.                 I   The  same. 
(5)  Thy    will    be    done    as    in  |   ^^^.^^^^^ 

heaven,  so  on  earth.  | 

(0)  Give  us  this   day  our  daily  ,  Give   us   day  by  day  our   daily 

bread  (Gr.  our  bread  for  i  bread  (Gr.  our  bread  for  the 

the  coming  day).  I  coming  day). 

(7)  And  forgive  us  our  debts,  as  I  And  forgive  us  our  sins  ;  for  we 

we  also  have  forgiveii  our  !       ourselves  also  forgive  every  one 
debtors.  I       that  is  indebted  to  us. 

(8)  And  briug  us  not  into  temp-  |   rp^^^  ^^^^^ 

tation. 

(0)  But  deliver  us  from  the  evil  i    .-.    •, ,    -, 
^  -^  /  -IN  Omitted, 

one  (or,  evil).  j 

Tischendorf  agrees  with  the  above  Revised  Version.  To  the 
clauses  numbered  1,  2,  5  and  i),  the  Revisers  attach  in  Luke  the 
note,  '  Many  ancient  authorities  read,'  &c.,  to  correspond  with 
Matthew.  Alford  considers  that  these  clauses  '  could  hardly  by  any 
possibility  have  been  omilted  by  any,  had  tiiey  ever  formed  a  part  of 
Luke's  text.  He  adds :  '  The  shorter  form,  found  in  the  Vatican  .  .  . 
and  in  the  recently  published  Sinaitic  ]\LS.,  was  the  original  one : 
then  the  copyists  inserted  the  clauses  which  were  not  found  here, 
taking  them  from  St.  Matthew.  That  this,  and  not  the  converse 
process,  must  have  been  the  one  folloAved,  is  evident  to  any  one  who 
considers  the  matter.  Stier's  argument,  that  our  text  has  not  been 
conformed  to  ]\Iatthew,  because  the  doxology  has  never  been  inserted 
hero,  seems  to  me  to  tend  in  quite  another  direction  :  the  doxology 
was  inserted  there,  because  tliat  icas  ihe  form  in  general  liturgicul 
use,  and  not  here,  because  that  ti-as  never  nsecl  litvrgically.'' 

Consider  the  simplicity  and  brevity  of  the  form  of  prayer 
bequeathed  to  us  by  Jesus.  At  its  first  delivery  he  connected  with  it 
a  warning  against  all  ostentation  and  '  vain  repetitious '  in  prayer. 
He  never  broached  the  doctrine,  so  fondly  held  and  zealously  propa- 
gated by  some,  that  prayer  is  to  be  regarded  as  a  .test  of  character, 
that  God  loves  him  best  who  prays  best,  or  most,  or  always  :  that 
idea  is  as  irrational  as  it  would  be  to  insist  upon  our  children  asking 
us  constantly,  repeatedly,  as  a  matter  of  duty  and  privilege  and  of 
moral  obligation,  to  watch  over  them  and  supply  their  wants.  They 
are  sure  we  shall  do  that,  without  the  asking  ;  their  petitions  are 
occasional  only,  and  naturally  and  properly  confined  to  those  things 
of  which  they  feel  the  want.  AVhat  is  prayer  but  the  effort,  either 
to  bring  the  divine  will  into  harmony  with  our  will,  or  our  will  into 


138  THE    KING    AND    THE    KINGDOM:  [part  ii. 

harmony  with  the  divine  will  ?  Whenever  they  are  felfc  to  coincide, 
there  is  no  need  of  prayer.  The  higher  our  advancement  towards 
perfection  of  character,  the  less  our  impulse  towards  prayer  on  our 
own  account.  It  becomes  transformed  into  praise,  and  that  not  of 
necessity  verbal  and  formal,  but  deep-seated,  the  silent,  reverential, 
adoring  gratitude  of  a  soul  redeemed,  at  peace,  and  hopeful  of 
futurity.  The  cry  is  no  longer,  '  I  pray  thee  to  hear  me,' 
but,  '  I  thank  thee  that  thou  hast  heard  me ; '  and  even  that 
utterance  is  checked  by  the  thought,  '  I  know  that  thou  hearest  me 
always.' 

When  the  disciples  asked  Jesus  to  teach  them  to  pray,  he  was 
content  to  refer  them  to  the  brief  form  he  had  previously  delivered, 
and  even  that  he  further  simplified  and  shortened.  Nothing  could 
be  more  condensed  than  tliis  :  '  Father,  Hallowed  l)e  thy  name. 
Thy  kingdom  come.  Give  us  day  by  day  our  daily  bread.  And 
forgive  us  our  sins  ;  for  we  ourselves  also  forgive  every  one  that  is 
indebted  to  us.  And  bring  us  not  into  temptation.'  The  wants 
and  aspirations  of  humanity  summed  up  into  those  six  petitions  I 
There  is  our  model.  Are  we  content  to  cojDy  it  ?  Or  do  we  prefer 
to  amplify  it,  as  though  God  could  be  better  pleased  with  a  stilted 
style  and  flowery  language  ? 

In  the  following  parable  Jesus  represents  prayer  as  the  natural 
and  nc(;essary  outcome  of  a  sudden  and  unexpected  emergency,  and 
great  as  was  the  importunity  he  described,  it  was  wholly  unselfish, 
the  intercession  being  on  behalf  of  another.  He  supposed  the  case 
of  a  man  venturing  to  trouble  his  friend,  in  the  depth  of  night,  not 
in  consequence  of  any  grave  calamity,  but  merely  for  the  purpose  of 
u  Luke  b  borrowing  a  little  bread.  '  And  he  said  unto  them.  Which  of  you 
shall  have  a  friend,  and  shall  go  unto  him  at  midnight,  and  say  to 
him,  Friend,  lend  me  three  loaves  ; '  the  sole  justification  for  the 
request  being  that  a  traveller  had  unexpectedly  arrived,  and  there 

„  15  Avas  no  food  in  the  house  :  '  for  a  friend  of  mine  is  come  from 
a  journey,  and  I  have  nothing  to  set  before  him.'  The  applicant 
was  met  with  expostulation  and  rebuff.  Why  should  a  person  be 
disturbed  at  so  unseemly  an  hour,  and  expected  to  get  up  and  furnish 
a  meal  for  the  friend  of  his  friend  ?  He  positively  refused  to  be 
troubled  with  the  matter  ;  it  was  preposterous  to  ask  him  to  get  out 

„  7  of  bed,  and  disturb  his  sleeping  family,  for  such  a  purpose.  'And 
he  from  within  shall  answer  and  say,  Trouble  me  not :  the  door  is 
now  shut,  and  my  children  are  with  me  in  bed  ;  I  cannot  rise  and 
give  thee?'  His  friendship  was  not  great  enough  for  that.  But 
necessity  knows  no  law  :  the  man  outside  continued  knocking,  asking, 
pestering  him  ;  the  clamour  could  not  be  stopped,  or  endured  ;  the 
trouble  of  repeatedly  refusing  Avas  more  than  the  trouble  involved  in 
complying  :  this  persistent  fellow  must  needs  have  what  he  wants  ; 
it  will  be  better  to  give  him  anything,  everything,  for  the  sake  of 

„  s  quiet  and  repose.  '  I  say  unto  you.  Though  he  will  not  rise 
and  give  him  because  he  is  his  friend,  yet  because  of  his  impor- 
tunity he  will  arise  and  give  him  as  many  (or,  whatsoever  things)  he 
needeth.' 

The  harshness  of  colouring  in  this  picture  was  undoubtedly  inten- 
tional. There  is  nothing  lovely  or  amiable  about  either  of  the  men. 
The  one  was  coldly  inditferent,  a  friend  in  name,  who  shrank  from 


TART  II.]        A    STUDY    OF    THE    FOUR    GOSPELS.  139 

the  trouble  entailed  by  a  friendly  action  ;  the  other  was  overbearing 
in  pur|)ose,  rough,  rude,  bent  on  gaining  his  wish  by  sheer  foree  of 
will.  The  veryopposite  of  all  that  was  to  be  attached  to  the  true 
notion  of  prayer.  Jesus  here  teaches  not  by  similarity  but  by 
conti-ast.  He  knoAvs  nothing  of  unwillingness  on  the  on'i  side,  or  of 
importunity  on  the  other.  He  teaches  that  to  ask  is  to  have,  to  seek 
is  to  obtain,  to  knock  is  to  gain  access.  'And  I  say  unto  you,  Ask,  u  r.uk,-;* 
and  it  shall  be  given  yon  ;  seek,  and  ye  shall  find  ;  knock,  and  it 
shall  be  opened  unto  you.'  There  is  no  restriction  on  the  divine 
bounty,  no  favouritism  on  the  part  of  God  ;  he  is  the  universal 
friend',  Avhosc  ear  is  ever  open,  who  is  never  weary  of  giving,  and 
whose  store  is  uidimited.  JSTone  need  ask  him  twice,  and  tiiough 
often  the  eagerness  of  our  desire  impels  us  to  beseech  him  thrice,  it 
is  not  that  his  grace  is  insufficient,  but  that  our  faith  is  weak,  or  our 
self-will  strong.  Jesus  repeats  his  assurance,  and  applies  it  without 
exception.  '  For  every  one  that  asketh  receiveth ;  and  he  that  „  id 
seeketh  findeth  ;  and  to  him  that  knocketh  it  shall  be  opened.'  His 
way  of  jnitting  the  matter  is  opposed  to  the  notion  commonly  enter- 
tained of  Prayer.  The  general  idea  and  definition  of  the  word  needs 
to  be  changed  and  broadened.  It  is  not  a  mere  asking  :  that  is  only 
one  of  its  aspects  ;  nor  is  it  merely  '  the  soul's  desire,  uttered  or 
unexpressed  : '  that  is  but  the  foundation  on  which  it  rests.  It 
comprises  asking,  seeking,  knocking  :  it  is  the  human  will  in  action, 
anxious  and  energetic  in  Avhatever  direction  may  have  been  clearly 
prescribed  by  the  divine  will.  Effort  is  as  much  a  part  of  prayer  as 
are  words  and  wishes  ;  let  us  not  mistake  the  part  ibr  the  whole. 
There  arc  moments  when  our  energies  are  exhausted,  when  we  can  no 
longer  be  seeking  and  knocking,  and  can  only  say,  in  sheer  weariness 
and  resignation.  Father,  not  my  will,  but  thine  be  done.  Only  the 
murmured  wish  is  then  within  our  power  ;  but  at  other  times,  what 
we  pray  for  we  must  seek  for,  or  prayer  degenerates  into  formalism 
and  hypocrisy.  Jesus  insisted  upon  that  truth  in  the  very  point 
where  it  might  seem  most  difficult  of  appHcation.  AYe  pray  for 
forgiveness  :  Avhat  can  we  do  towards  it  ?  Xay  ;  even  that  is  not  to 
be  divorced  from  our  own  free-will  and  effort.  '  For  if  ye  forgive  c  Mut.  14,  i* 
men  their  trespasses,  your  heavenly  Father  will  also  forgive  you. 
But  if  ye  forgive  not  men  their  trespasses,  neither  will  your  Father 
forgive  your  trespasses.' 

Prayer  is  the  cry  of  a  child  to  its  father.     That  is  its  true  and  best 
illustration.     The  parental  instinct  forl)ids  indift'erence.     Callousness 
on  the  part  of  a  father  is  inconceivable,  contrary  to  nature.     '  And  11  luu.'  11, 
of  which  of  you  that  is  a  father  shidl  his  son  ask  a  loaf,  and  he  give  ^'^ 

him  a  stone  ?  Or  a  fish,  and  he  for  a  fish  give  him  a  serpent  ?  Or 
if  he  shall  ask  an  eg(>:,  will  he  give  him  a  scorpion  ? '  The  son's 
request  is  supposed  to  be  confined  to  necessary  and  wholesome  food, — 
a  loaf,  a  fish,  an  egg.  That,  and  only  that,  will  be  supplied  :  nothing 
useless,  nothing  hurtful.  However  degraded  the  condition  of 
mankind,  the  law  prevails  universally,  that  the  knowledge  and 
experience  of  the  father  will  be  used  for  the  son's  welfare.  How 
much  more,  then,  must  that  be  the  case  with  the  heavenly  Father  ? 
'  If  ye,  then,  being  evil,  know  how  to  give  good  gifts  unto  your  „  i» 
children,  how  much  more  shall  j/oi/r  heavenly  Father  give  the  Holy 
Spirit   to   them   that   ask  him  ? '     Alford  notes   that  the  italicised 


140 


TRE    KING    AND    THE    KINGDOM: 


[fAKT   II. 


:a  Ps.  n 

(i3  Is.v.  10 

11 


1  Mat.  IS,  20 
Jl>  M  it.  31 
:;  M'u-k  :i!i 
1:!  Luke  10 

14  John  21) 
-J.S  Acts  '2j 
:i  IIcl).  7 
U  I-I.'b.  .S 


:J  M  it.  11 
1  .Ahirk  S 
■.i  Luke  10 
1  John  33 
1  Ai-ts  .■•, 
V2M;uk  30 

1  Luke  Hr, 

„       -tl 
„       (i" 
4  Luke  1 
11  Luke  13 

2  Acts  4 
4  Acts  31 

<;Acts5 
7  Acts  r,r, 
'.I  Acts  17 

10  Acts  38 

1 1  Acts  l(i 

,.       24 

13  Acts  0,  5: 

14  Rnm.  17 

1  i.  Thes.  .0 

.,        a 

2  Heb.  4 

1  i.  Pet.  12 
.luile  20 


word  '  your '  is  '  not  expressed  at  all : '  the  literal  translation  is,  '  the 
Father  the  from  heaven,'  Young  renders  :  '  the  Father  who  is  from 
heaven;'  Tischendorf,  ' your  Father  from  heaven.'  Samuel  Sharp:; 
renders  :  '  How  much  more  will  the  father  from  heaven  give  holy 
spirit  to  them  that  ask  him.'  It  cannot  be  denied  that  translators, 
by  beginning  the  two  words  '  holy '  and  '  spirit '  with  capital  letters, 
have  thereby  conveyed  to  ordinary  readers  the  idea  of  a  Person. 
Even  Dr.  Young  has  followed  suit  in  that  respect.  But  where  the 
words  occur  in  the  Old  Testament  the  Revisers  have  not  used 
capitals.  '  Take  not  thy  holy  spirit  from  me.'  '  They  rebelled  and 
grieved  his  holy  spirit.'  '  Where  is  he  that  put  his  holy  spirit  in  the 
midst  of  them  ? '  In  the  Authorised  Version  the  passage  from  the 
Psalm  agrees  with  the  Revised  Version  ;  and  in  the  othei'  two  verses 
a  capital  is  used  for  the  word  '  Spirit'  only  ;  whereas  in  the  three 
passages  Young  has  deferred  to  '  orthodox '  ideas  by  using  capitals 
for  both  words.  AYhy,  unless  for  the  same  reason,  do  the  Revisers 
always  introduce  capitals  when  the  same  words  occur  in  the  New- 
Testament  ?  To  obtain  an  unprejudiced  view  of  the  matter,  let  us 
turn  to  a  translation  which  was  uninfluenced  by  the  generally 
received  doctrine  of  the  Trinity.  Samuel  Sharpe  agrees  with  the 
Re^-isers  as  to  the  three  passages  in  the  Old  Testament,  and,  with 
some  exceptions,  adheres  to  the  same  plan  throughout  the  ISTew 
Testament.     His  exceptions  arc  the  foUowinu'. 

3  '  With  child  of  the  Holy  Spirit.'  :•}  'Is  of  the  Holy  Spirit.' 
2  '  Whosoever  speaketh  against  the  Holy  Spirit.'  5  '  He  that 
shall  blaspheme  against  the  Holy  Spirit.'  4  '  Him  that  blasphemeth 
against  the  Holy  Spirit.'  4  'The  Holy  Spirit  will  teach  you.' 
5  'The  Comforter,  the  Holy  Spirit.'  5  '  Well  spake  the  Holy  Spirit 
through  Isaiah.'  5  'As  the  Holy  Spirit  saith.'  5  '  The  Holy  Spirit 
signifying  this.'  These  ten  passages  are  the  only  ones  in  which 
Sharpe  introduces  capitals.  In  those  numbered  3  the  original  has 
pneuma  Itagion,  '  spirit  holy  ; '  in  those  numbered  4,  io  Ji.agioiipncuma, 
'  the  holy  spirit ; '  in  those  numbered  o,  io  pneuma  io  lunjion, '  the  spirit 
the  holy  ; '  number  2,  io  juieuma,  '  the  spirit.' 

In  the  following  2(S  passages  Sharpe  omits  the  article  before  'holy 
spirit,'  because  all  of  them  come  under  number  3  and  are  without  an 
article  in  the  original.  'In  holy  spirit  and  fire.'  'He  will  baptize 
you  in  holy  spirit.'  '  He  will  baptize  you  in  holy  spirit  and  fire.' 
'  He  that  baptizeth  in  holy  spirit.'  '  Ye  will  lie  baptized  in  holy 
spirit.'  '  David  himself  in  holy  spirit,  said.'  '  Holy  spirit  will  come 
upon  thee.'  '  Elisabeth  was  filled  Avith  holy  spirit.'  '  Zacharias  was 
filled  with  holy  spirit.'  '  Jesus  being  full  of  holy  spirit.'  '  (live  holy 
spirit  to  them  that  ask  him.'  '  They  were  all  filled  with  holy  spirit'.' 
'  They  were  all  filled  with  holy  sj)irit.'  '  Peter,  filled  w^ith  holy  spirit.' 
'A  man  full  of  faith  and  holy  spirit.'  'Being  full  of  holy  spirit.' 
'  And  be  filled  with  holy  spirit.'  '  God  anointed  him  with  holy  spirit 
and  power.'  '  Ye  shall  be  baptized  in  holy  spirit.'  '  Full  of  holy 
spirit  and  faith.'  '  Being  filled  with  holy  sjiirit.'  '  Filled  with  joy 
and  holy  spirit.'  '  Righteousness  and  peace,  and  joy  Avith  holy  spirit.' 
'  In  power,  and  in  holy  spirit  and  in  much  assurance.'  '  AVith  joy  of 
holy  spirit.'  '  Gifts  of  holy  spirit.'  '  AVith  holy  spirit  sent  from 
heaven.'     '  Praying  Avitli  holy  spirit.' 

In  the  following  two  passages  Sharpe  inserts  the  indefinite  article, 


ir.  (> 


PART  II.]         .4    .STUDY   OF    THE    FUUIi    GOSPELS.  141 

ulthoiio-h  there  is  no  article  in  the  orij^iual.     '  No  man  can  say  that  ^-  '•  C"' 
Jesus  is  the  Lord  but  by  a  lioly  spirit.'     '  By  a  holy  spirit.'    In  both  '■-  ii-  c- 
passaf^-es  the  Authorised  Version,  Younj^-  and  Tischendorf  insert  the 
definite  article  and  capitalise  the  words. 

In  the  Authorised  Version  one  passage  stands  :  '  full  of  the  Holy  o  Acts  :$ 
(ihost  and  wisdom,'  there  being  no  article  in  the  original.  The 
Revisers  have  altered  that  to,  ''full  of  the  Spirit  and  of  wisdom.' 
The  Sinaitic  MS.  has,  '  full  of  the  spirit  of  wisdom,'  and  the  transla- 
tion from  Tiscliendorf's  critical  text  is,  'full  of  the  spirit  and  wisdom.' 
The  Revisers,  by  capitalising  the  woi'd  '  spirit,'  convey  the  same 
meaning  as  '  Holy  (ihost '  has  in  the  Authorised  Version. 

Here  is  a  similar  instance.     The  lYuthoriscd  Version  stands, '  which  -  '•  Cm-.  i:j 
the  Holy  Ghost  teachcLh,'  although  there  is  no  article  in  the  original. 
The   three   oldest   MSS.   omit  'holy.'     The  Revisers  capitalise  the 
word  'spirit.'     Sharpe   agrees   with   Tischendorf:    'taught   by  the 
spirit.' 

In  the  following  passage  the  Revisers  have  capitalised  the  word 
'spirit,'  contrary^to  the    Authorised  Version,  Avhich    stands:  '  the  r,  i.  joim  ^ 
spirit,  and   the   water,  and   the   blood.'     Tischendorf,    Young  and 
Sharpe  adopt  the  small  .s  in  spirit. 

In  the  following  ])assage  Sharpe  agrees  with  the  Revisers  in  capital- 
ising the  word  '  Spirit.'     '  The  blasphemy  against  the  Spirit  shall  not  12  Mat.  r,i 
be  forgiven.' 

The  last  ])assage  which  needs  to  lie  referred  to  is  :  'And  the  Holy  loiiei..  15 
(rhost  also  lieareth  witness  to  us,'  which  is  rendei'ed  by  Sharpe,  'And 
the  Spirit  also  witnesseth  for  ns  :'  he  capitalises  the  word  'Spirit,' 
but  there  is  nothing  to  indicate  Avhy  he  omits  the  word  '  holy.' 

There  are  .50  other  passages  in  addition  to  the  foregoing, 
in  which  the  words  '  holy  spirit '  occur,  in  all  of  which  Sharpe  has 
discarded  capitals. 

It  must  be  admitted  that  he  is  not  altogether  consistent.  Pro- 
liably  he  could  ha^"e  given  reasons,  more  or  less  satisfactory,  for  the 
Ki  instances  in  which  he  has  followed  the  plan  adopted  throughout 
by  other  translators.  But  the  explanation  is  not  forthcoming,  and 
one  is  certainly  required.  If,  however,  we  are  nnable  to  see  Avhy  he 
iu  those  exceptional  cases  capitalises  the  words,  how  much  less  can 
the  justitication  be  imagined  for  doing  so  in  every  case  !  The  habit 
indicates  a  foregone  conclusion,  a  settled  doctrine,  just  as  much  as 
the  writing  of  the  word  '  God '  with  a  capital  denotes  the  supremo 
Being  :  when  that  is  not  signified  by  the  translators  they  omit  the 
ca])ital,  which  is  done  in  a  mnltitude  of  passages,  notably  in  the 
following  :  '  For  though  there  be  that  are  called  gods,  whether  in  s  i.  Cor. :.,  & 
heaven  or  on  earth  ;  as  there  are  gods  many,  and  hjrds  many  ;  yet 
to  us  there  is  one  God,  the  Father,  of  whom  are  all  things,  and  wc 
unto  him,  and  one  Lord,  Jesus  Christ,  through  whom  are  all  things, 
u!:d  we  through  him.'  The  context  must  in  every  instance  fix  the 
sense,  equally  as  regards  the  word  '  god  '  and  the  word  '  spirit.'  No 
translator,  and  no  sufficiently  intelligent  reader,  can  escape  the  re- 
sponsibility of  exercising  his  own  judgment  in  the  matter.  Unfor- 
tunately our  translations  and  retranslations  have  been  undertaken  by 
theologians  deeply  committed  to  Trinitarian  doctrines. — men  who 
could  not,  owing  to  their  previous  training,  or  who  would  not  if  they 
could,  owing  to  their  clerical  status  and  surroundings,  refrain  from 


142  TEE    KING    AND    THE   KINCWOM :  [part  ii. 

brinii'ing  out,  by  such  an  easy  method,  their  own  way  of  understaud- 
ino-  the  repeated  alhisions  in  Scripture  to  the  '  spirit '  and  the  '  holy 
spirit/  Even  Dr.  Eobert  Young,  in  the  preface  to  his  independent, 
literal  and  idiomatic  translation,  thought  it  well  to  say  of  his  altera- 
tions :  '  While  they  aflPect  A'ery  considerably  the  outward  form 
of  the  translation,  it  is  a  matter  of  thankfulness  that  they  do  not 
touch  the  truth  of  a  single  Scripture  doctrine, — 7iot  even  one.''  That 
betrays  a  theological  bias,  sufficient  by  itself  to  explain  why  he  has 
so  submissively  followed  the  Authorised  Version  in  this  matter  of 
capitalising.  If  we  are  to  claim  and  use  the  freedom  of  judgment 
14  i.  r'or.  i;o  which  the  apostle  Paul  urged  in  the  words,  'Brethren,  be  not 
children  in  mind  ...  in  miud  be  men  (Gr,  of  full  age),'  it  becomes 
an  absolute  necessity,  either  that  the  translation  of  these  crucial 
texts  should  stand  uncapitalised,  or  that  we  should  deal  with  them 
as  though  they  were.  Thereby  we  shall  show  a  readiness  of  mind  to 
receive  ti'uth,  let  it  come  from  or  iucline  to  whichever  side  it  will  ; 
Avhich  certainly  was  not  the  case  with  the  Revisers,  who  regarded  the 
presence  of  the  one  acknowledged  Unitarian  among  them  as  a  scandal, 
aud  so  necessitated  his  withdrawal  from  the  work  to  which  he  had 
been  called  in  conjunction  with  themselves.  The  use  of  capitals  is 
arbitrary,  and  may  easily  grow  into  an  abuse  ;  aud  their  disuse  entails 
no  risk  of  misconception.  That  must  be  obvious,  when  we  remember 
tliat  in  the  German  Version  there  is  and  coukl  be  nothing  answering 
to  the  plan  resorted  to  by  our  translators,  every  substantive  in  that 
language  being  capitalised.  German  readers  are  on  this  point  com- 
]K'lled  to  judge  of  the  sense  by  the  context,  which  is  the  only  safe 
rule  in  studying  Scripture.  Luther  did  not  capitalise  the  adjective 
'  holy  '  before  '  Spirit,'  as  oiu*  translators  have  done.  The  translation 
of  Samuel  Sharpe  has  the  merit,  with  very  few  exceptions,  of  being 
faithful  to  the  original,  which  is  more  than  can  be  said  of  those 
versions  in  which  the  definite  article  is  inserted  where  it  does  not 
appear  ia  the  text.  No  unprejudiced,  unshackled  searcher  for  the 
truth  will  be  content  to  regard  the  doctrine  involved,  as  settled  for 
him  by  his  forefathers,  and  therefore  incontrovertible.  It  must  be 
faced,  and  argued  out  honestly  and  impartially,  in  calm  defiance  of 
ecclesiastical  censures  and  time-honotu'cd  assertions  and  denuncia- 
tions. Happily  the  days  are  past  when  theologians  could  excom- 
municate, imprison,  burn  those  whose  views  seemed  to  them  heretical. 
The  foregoing  remarks  are  not  made  in  any  spirit  of  opposition  to 
the  prevailing  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  nor  with  any  leaning  in  favour 
of  Unitarianism.  Before  a  step  can  be  taken  towards  a  thorough 
investigation,  it  is  essential  tlms  to  clear  the  way,  by  ascertaining  to 
what  extent  the  dogma  may  have  been  affected  by  the  idiosyncrasies 
of  translators. 

3  3  i.nkr  i-i  "\ye  turn  now  to  the  13th  chapter  of  Luke.  '  And  he  went  on  his 
way  through  cities  aud  villages,  teaching,  and  journeying  on  unto 
Jerusalem.'  There  is  no  connection  traceable  between  that  statement 
of  the  evangelist  and  the  portion  of  the  narrative  immediately  pre- 
jceding.     The  author  of  '  Gospel  Difficulties  '  *  has  arrived  at  the 

*  "Gospel  Difficulties,  or  the  Displaced  Section  of  S.  Luke." 
By  J.  J.  Halcombe,  M.A. 


PART  II.]        A    STUDY   OF    THE    FOUR    GOSPELS.  143 

conclusion  tliat  here  '  a  section  of  S.  Luke's  fJospel  has  been  jilaced 
after  a  section  wliich  it  oritiinally  preceded,  and  that  a  new  and 
utterly  confusing  order  of  events  has  been  created  at  three  points  : 
(a)  where  the  section  was  taken  from  its  right  place,  (b)  where  it  was 
inserted  in  the  wrong  jjlace,  (c)  where  a  fictitious  connection  was 
established  between  the  reversed  sections.'  Accordingly  he  places 
between  verses  21  and  22  of  chapter  8,  the  portion  of  chapter  11  from 
verses  1-1  to  54,  the  whole  of  chapter  12,  and  chapter  l:-*  u])  to  verse 
2  ;  and  he  asserts  '  that  the  above  displacement  being  rectified,  the 
general  arrangement  of  the  Gospels  is  perfectly  simple  throughout, 
S.  Luke's  restored  order  at  once  explaining  both  the  exact  i)laa  of 
of  S.  ]\[atthew's  Gospel  and  the  rare  and  very  slight  departures  from 
a  chronological  arrangement  observable  in  8,  Mark.'  Without  enter- 
ing ui)on  the  argument  relating  to  jMatthcw  and  ]\Iark,  it  is  no  small 
gain  to  have  efi'ected  by  this  one  simple  alteration  an  obvions  con- 
sistency and  consecutiveness  throughout  the  ({ospel  according  to 
Luke.  That  evangelist,  having  mentioned  the  course  of  teaching 
from  place  to  place  undtrtaken  by  Jesus,  proceeds  in  this  and  the  five 
following  chapters  to  give  examples  of  his  teaching. 

A  question  was  put  to  Jesus.  '  And  one  said  unto  him,  Lord  ^'^  Luke  23 
(Sir — Young)  are  they  few  that  be  saved  ? '  Young  renders  :  '  Are 
those  saved  few  ? '  Tischendorf  :  '  Are  there  few  to  be  saved  ? '  The 
former  simply  indicates  a  fact ;  the  latter  denotes  a  purpose.  An 
examination  of  the  multitude  of  scriptural  passages  in  which  the 
woi'ds  *  save '  and  '  saved '  occur,  makes  it  evident  that  the  term 
*  saved '  had  the  same  breadth  of  meaning  and  application  as  it  now 
bears  in  ordinary  language.  The  one  sense  which  cannot  be  justified, 
is  that  restricted  theological  one  which  somehow  has  come  to  be 
iittacbed  to  it, — the  idea  of  deliverance  hereafter  i'rom  the  penalty  of 
sin,  escape  at  the  day  of  judgment  from  endless  misery,  and  admis- 
sion to  the  happiness  of  heaven.  The  word  '  saved  '  signifies  deliver- 
ance from  evil,  actual  or  threatened,  without  reference  to  any  specific 
event  or  period. 

The  reply  of  Jesus  intimated  that  personal  safety  must  depend 
upon  personal  effort,  and  upon  the  due  use  of  the  right  way  and 
fitting  opportunity.  '  And  he  said  unto  them,  Strive  to  enter  in  by  „  -li,  2 
the  narrow  door.'  An  easier,  broader  entrance  is  here  suggested, 
which  must  be  avoided  with  a  view  to  safety  ;  many  will" be  lost 
through  choosing  either  the  wrong  way  or  the  wrong  time.  '  For  „  24 
many,  I  say  unto  you,  shall  seek  to  enter  in,  and  shall  not  be  able.' 
The  figure  of  admission  by  a  nari-ow  entrance  is  now  enlarged  into  a 
]Xirable.  Jesus  represents  a  householder  as  rising  u}:*,  shutting  the 
door,  and  excluding  later  comers.  'When  once  the  master  of  the  „  i'5 
house  is  risen  up,  and  hath  shut  to  the  door  .  .  ,'  The  llevisers  indi- 
cate by  a  note  a  doubt  whether  the  full  stop  between  'able'  and 
•'  when  '  should  not  be  replaced  by  a  comma.  That  arises  from  the 
change  in  verse  24  of  '  strait  gate '  to  *  narrow  door,'  in  accordance 
Avith  the  two  oldest  MSS.  It  seems  right  to  keep  the  ideas  distinct, 
the  •  narrow  gate  '  in  7  Matthew  lo  denoting  a  safe^w/A/ra//,  and  the 
house  in  this  parable  having,  as  a  matter  of  course,  only  one  recog- 
nised '  door  '  for  entrance,  quite  irrespective  of  its  breadth  or  narrow- 
ness. Finding  the  door  closed,  the  late  comers  would  crowd  round 
andknock,  but  be  denied  admission  :  'and  ye  begin  to  stand  without,      "      -^ 


144 


THE   KING    AND    THE    KINGDOM: 


[PAKT    II. 


I'J  John  2i; 


]  3  Luke  27 


and  to  knock  at  tlie  door,  saying,  Lord,  lord,  open  to  ns  ;  and  he 
shall  answer  and  say  to  you,  I  know  you  not  whence  ye  are.'  The 
cry  '  Lord,  lord '  may  signify  that  they  came  not  as  guests,  but  as 
servants  desiring  a  place  in  the  houseliold,  and  the  answer,  'I  know 
you  not  whence  ye  are,'  imports  that  inasmuch  as  they  hud  not  pre- 
sented themselves  previously,  their  character  and  fitness  could  not  be 
recognised.  Then  they  claim  some  prior  knowledge  of  the  house- 
holder, but  it  is  casual  and  distant  at  the  best.  '  Then  shall  ye  begin 
to  say,  We  did  eat  and  drink  in  thy  presence,  and  thou  didst  teach  in 
our  streets.'  But  what  could  it  avail  that  some  of  them  had  met  him 
in  society,  and  others  had  known  him  by  report  as  their  city  mis- 
sionary ?  That  could  only  prove  how  negligent  they  had  been  to 
cultivate  his  acquaintance,  how  indifferent  and  averse  to  his  teach- 
ings. His  social  intercourse,  his  repeated  pleadings,  had  not  attracted 
them  to  his  cause  and  person.  Those  worthy  of  him  had  followed 
him  :  '  Where  I  am,  there  shall  also  my  servant  be.'  Their  delay  in 
obeying  his  call  sufficed  t(j  prove  their  true  character.  They  were 
not  fit  for  his  work,  nor  could  they  be  admitted  to  a  place  in  his 
household  :  *  and  he  shall  say,  I  know  not  Avhence  ye  are  :  depart 
from  me,  all  ye  workers  of  iniquity.'  Alford  renders  :  '  ye  Avorkmen 
of  iniquity.'  These  are  they  who  have  not  been  saved — from  their 
sins.  Deep  will  be  their  grief,  and  bitter  their  disappointment,  to 
find  themselves  excluded  on  that  account  from  God's  kingdom  here- 
after. Jesus  drops  the  parable  of  the  house  and  householder,  and  bids 
them  contemplate  the  future  life,  when  they  will  hold  communion 
with  the  dead,  the  age-during  existence  of  the  Jewish  patriarchs 
enabling  them  to  clasp  hands  with  their  remote  descendants.  '  There 
shall  be  the  weeping  and  gnashing  of  teeth,  when  ye  shall  see 
Abraham,  and  Isaac,  and  Jacob,  and  all  the  prophets,  in  the  kingdom 
of  God,  and  yourselves  cast  forth  without.'  Jesus  surely  was  not 
deluding  us  with  visionary  hopes,  when  he  so  calmly  and  assuredly  spoke 
about  realities  such  as  tliese  in  the  world  to  come.  He  only  could 
disclose  these  things.  '  No  man  hath  ascended  into  heaven,  but  he 
that  descended  out  of  heaven,  even  the  Son  of  man.'  While  in  this 
world  he  held  converse  w'ith  departed  saints.  jMoses  and  Elijah  came 
to  him  on  the  mountain-top,  the  fact  being  witnessed  by  three,  and 
very  positively  and  solemnly  attested  in  writing  by  two  of  his  dis- 
ciples. However  little  we  ponder  and  are  influenced  by  these  revela- 
tions, they  are  absolutely,  literally  true,  having  a  basis  as  real  and 
substantial  as  any  established  scientific  fact  relating  to  the  earth  or 
its  inhabitants.  In  proportion  as  we  yield  ourselves  to  the  teachings 
of  Jesus  on  other  matters,  our  minds  will  become  able  to  grasp  and 
realise  his  declarations  respecting  the  future  life  and  the  heavenly 
world.  His  scheme  of  teaching  is  l)ased  upon  his  knoAvledge  of  both 
worlds,  and  is  designed  to  make  the  present  life  homogeneous  with 
that  which  is  to  come.  That  is  the  secret  of  his  divine  jjhilosophy, 
and  that  our  faith  may  reach  the  highest  round  of  that  ladder  which 
he  has  raised  between  earth  and  heaven,  we  must  begin  our  climbing 
at  the  bottom,  and  ascend  patiently  and  carefully  step  by  step.  '  If 
I  told  you  earthly  things,  and  ye  believe  not,  how  shall  ye  believe,  if 
I  tell  you  heavenly  things?'  The  w^ords  of  Jesus  applied  to  the 
actual  hearers  :  '  when  ye  shall  see  Abraham,  and  Isaac,  and  Jacob, 
and  all  the  prophets  in  the  kingdom  of  God,  and  yourselves  cast 


PART  11.]         .4    STUDY    OF    THE    FOUR    GOSPELS.  145 

out/  ThouL!.']!  the  .lewisli  nation  lie  intended,  that  will  not  exchide 
iiulividiials,  nor  were  those  then  living  excepted  because  their  poste- 
rity were  included  in  the  warnin«i-.  And  there  will  be  no  exclusion 
on  account  of  nationality  in  (lod's  kingdom  :  'And  they  shall  come 
from  the  east  and  west,  and  from  the  north  and  south,  and  shall  sit 
down  (Gv.  rech'ne)  in  the  kingdom  of  God.'  Tischendorf  renders  : 
•  will  sit  down  at  table:'  nnder  the  figure  of  a  so(;ial  feast,  Jesus 
foretells  the  friendly  welcome  and  intimacy  which  will  prevail  in  the 
company  of  the  redeemed.  The  picture  he  draws  is  one  of  universal 
physical  and  moral  happiness,  the  wicked  banished  and  the  righteous 
rejoicing.  That  is  his  ideal  of  the  '  salvation  '  of  humanity.  And 
this  renovation  of  society  will  involve  not  only  the  separation  of  the 
bad  from  the  good,  but  in  many  instances  among  the  redeemed  them- 
selves a  reversal  of  their  previous  relative  positions  as  i-egards  rank, 
honour  and  influence.  '  And  behold,  there  are  last  which  shall  be 
■first,  and  there  are  first  which  shall  be  last.'  The  law  of  advance- 
ment in  God's  kingdom  will  be  vastly  different  from  that  which 
prevails  on  earth.  That  reflection  was  often  in  the  mind  of  Jesus, 
for  he  repeated  more  than  once  his  saying  with  respect  to  it.  Of 
course  the  pride  and  pomp  wdiich  are  now  dependent  upon  wealth 
will  cease,  and  the  glory  of  the  warrior  Avill  hnd  no  place  in  that 
kingdom  which  triumphs  in  righteousness,  peace  and  joy.  Science, 
art,  intellect,  refinement,  moral  worth,  and  the  spirit  of  brotherhood, 
— these  will  be  held  in  everlasting  honour.  Social  status  will  depend 
on  social  worth.  The  spiritual  hierarchy,  from  the  pope  downwards, 
archbishops,  bishops,  archdeacons,  deans,  vicars,  rectors,  deacons,  who 
have  claimed  to  be  ministers  of  Christ,  successors  of  the  apostles, 
dispensers  of  sacramental  gifts,  or  at  the  very  least  instructors  in  the 
things  of  Christ  and  guides  to  the  heavenly  Avorld  :  how  far  will  their 
l)retensions  hold  good  hereafter  ?  AVill  the  round  they  now  prescribe 
and  practise  of  prayer,  praise,  penance,  and  the  mystical  communion 
through  the  eating  of  bread  and  drinking  of  wine  duly  consecrated, 
be  found  indeed  to  accord  with  the  mind  of  Christ,  and  to  have 
helped  forward  his  kingdom  ?  Or  will  these  men  generally  find  their 
occupation  gone,  many  of  their  assumptions  to  have  been  nnwar- 
ranted,  many  of  their  dogmas  exploded  and  rejected  as  erroneous, 
and  the  church  of  Christ  a  different  organisation  altogether  from 
Avhat  they  had  been  taught  and  had  taught  others  to  believe  ?  We 
are  all  fallible,  pi-obably  they  most  so  whose  teaching  is  most  positive. 
How  astounded  must  the  scribes  and  Pharisees  have  been  to  hear 
Jesus  express  the  opinion  that  they  were  shutting  up  the  kingdom  of 
heaven  against  men  ;  that  their  zeal  in  compassing  heaven  and  earth 
to  make  one  proselyte,  ended  in  their  making  him  twofold  more  the 
child  of  hell  than  themselves !  The  rank  now  assigned  to  men  is 
quite  as  much  the  outcome  of  class  as  of  character  :  none  can  rise  in 
'the  Church  '  who  either  fall  below  a  recognised  standard  of  ortho- 
doxy or  rise  al)0ve  the  spirit  and  doctrine  of  the  age  in  which  they 
live.  '  Ye  know  not  what  manner  of  spirit  ye  are  of,'  said  Jesus  to 
his  apostles.  "When  all  things  come  to  be  ruled  according  to  his  will, 
and  all  men  to  be  placed  according  to  his  judgment,  great  and  sur- 
prising will  be  the  reversals  in  their  respective  positions  :  '  There  are 
last  which  shall  be  first,  and  there  are  first  which  shall  be  last.' 


146  THE    KING    AND    THE   KINGDOM:  [part  ii. 

The  incident  next  related  hy  the  evangelist  begins  in  the  Antho- 
rised  Version  with  the  words,  '  The  same  day,'  Following  the  three 
oldest  ]\ISS.,  the  Kevisers  have  altered  this  to,  '  In  that  very  hour,' 
and  Tischendorf  to  '  In  that  same  hour.'  Certain  Pharisees  urged 
Jesus  to  stop  his  course  of  teaching,  and  to  hasten  his  departure  from 

iH  Luke  31  the  place,  on  the  ground  that  Herod  was  seeking  his  life.  '  In  that 
very  hour  there  came  certain  Pharisees,  saying  to  him,  Get  thee  out, 
and  go  hence  :  for  Herod  would  fain  kill  thee.'  The  last  four  words 
are  clearer  than  '  will  kill  thee  '  in  the  Authorised  Version.  Alford 
renders,  '  is  minded  to  ; '  Tischendorf,  '  desires  to  ; '  Young,  '  wisheth 
to.'  Alford  observes :  '  These  Pharisees  appear  to  have  been  sent  by 
Herod  for  the  purpose  of  getting  rid  of  Jesus  out  of  his  jurisdiction. 
Considering  his  character,  it  is  hardly  possible  that  he  should  really 
have  wished  to  kill  one  wJio  teas  so  popular ;  he  refused  to  do  so  when 
Jesus  was  in  his  power  afterwards  in  Jerusalem  ;  but,  as  great 
multitudes  were  now  following  him  about,  and  superstitious  fears,  as 
we  know,  agitated  Herod,  he  wished  to  be  quit  of  him,  and  took  this 
means  of  doing  so.  I  think  this  view  is  necessary  to  justify  the 
epithet  applied  to  Herod,  which  certainly  implies  fun??//?//  07i  his  part.'' 
The  reply  of  Jesus  was  couched  in  a  tone  of  dignified  reprobation 
,.  :«  and  remonstrance,  '  And  he  said  unto  them,  Go  and  say  to  that 
fox  .  .'  \\Q  are  accustomed  to  regard  the  prominent  characteristic  of 
a  fox  to  be  that  of  cunning,  but  it  by  no  means  follows  that  the  idea 
Avas  familiar  to  the  Jews.  In  a  country  where  foxes  abounded,  the 
damage  done  by  the  animals,  and  their  habit  of  attacking  and 
destroying  things  on  which  the  husbandman  had  expended  much 
care  and  labour,  would  natui'ally  be  the  foremost  thought  in  connec- 
tion with  them. 

■z  s..iig  of  '  Take  us  the  foxes,  the  little  foxes,  that  spoil  the  vineyards  ; 

soiifcs  V)  Yov  our  vineyards  are  in  l)lossom.' 

Herod  had  stopped  the  career  of  John  the  Baptist  by  first  im- 
prisoning and  at  last  beheading  him.  Therein  he  had  acted  the  part 
of  a  fox,  and  he  now  showed  an  inclination  to  interfere  with  Jesus 
and  mar  his  work  in  the  same  way.  Jesus  met  the  threat  by  ex- 
]ilaining  that  he  meant  to  carry  on  his  labour  of  exorcising  and 

13  Luke  3j  Jiealiug  during  three  days  only.  '  Behold,  I  cast  out  devils  (Gr. 
demons )  and  perform  cures  to-day  and  to-morrow,  and  the  third  daij 
I  am  perfected.*  Tischendorf  renders,  '  the  third  day  I  finish  ; ' 
Sharpe,  '  the  third  day  I  shall  have  ended.'     The  verb  teJeiod,  is  the 

■-'  Luke  43  same  as  in  the  passage  :  '  and  when  they  had  fulfilled  the  days.*' 
And  although  during  those  three  days  Jesus  must  needs  carry  out  his 
work,  yet  he  would  at  the  same  time  be  complying  with  the  desire  of 

13  Luke  33  Hcrod  by  journeying  onwards.  '  Howbeit  I  must  go  on  my  way  to- 
day and  to-morrow  and  the  iknj  following.'  Tischendorf  renders  : 
'  I  must  go  about  ; '  Young  :  '  go  on  ; '  the  Authorised  Version  has  : 
'  I  must  walk  ; '  Alford  renders  :  '  I  must  journey,'  and  he  explains  : 
*  In  the  original  it  is  the  very  word  in  which  they  had  addressed  him, 
Depart  (journey)  lience.''  All  this  seems  very  clear  ;  but  to  Alford  it 
seemed  quite  incomprehensible.  He  says:  'The  interpretation  of 
tins  answer  is  difiicult,  for  two  reasons — (1)  that  the  signification  of 
the  to-day,  to-morrow,  and  the  third  day  is  doubtful — (2)  that  the 
meaning  of  /  am  perfected  is  also  doubtful.'  He  liegins  by  assuming 
I  hat  the  words  used  have  some  mysterious  meaning;  he  rejects  the- 


I'ART  II.]        A    STLWY    OF    THE    FOUR    GOSPELS.  147 

natural  interpretation  of  Meyer  and  Bleek  :  '  In  three  days  (literal 
(lays)  tiie  Lord's  workint;-  of  miracles  in  Galilee  would  be  ended, 
which  had  excited  the  apprehension  of  Herod  :  and  that  He  would 
leave  the  territory,  not  for  fear  of  Herod,  bnt  becanse  he  was  goinj^- 
to  Jerusalem  to  die  : '  and  after  vainly  searching  for  some  satisfactory 
mystical  sense,  lie  ends  by  saying  :  '  I  own  that  neither  of  the  al)Ove 
interpretations  satisfy  me,  and  still  less  the  various  modifications  of 
them  which  have  been  proposed.  Nor  can  I  suggest  one  less  open  to 
objection.'  No  wonder:  for  he  started  with  the  conviction  '  that 
prrferted  is  used  in  the  solemn  sense  elsewhere  attached  to  the  word,' 
and  he  refers  to  eleven  passages  in  which  the  word  occurs.  Other 
translators  saw  no  such  reason  for  doubt  and  uncertainty  here.  The 
sense  of  the  expression  must  l)e  fixed  by  the  context.  It  is  most 
nm-easonable  to  suppose  that  Jesus  returned  an  answer  to  Herod  in 
the  form  of  an  enigma,  so  difficult  of  solution  that  a  luminary  of  the 
Church  in  the  nineteenth  century  found  himself  unable  to  eluci- 
date it. 

Jesus  being  on  his  way  towards  Jerusalem,  there  was  no  necessity 
for  Herod  to  urge  his  moving  forward;  and  that  he,  a  prophet, should 
be  killed  anywhere  outside  of  Jerusalem  would  be  indeed  a  new  event 
ill  history.  'For  it  cannot  be  that  a  prophet  perish  out  of  Jeru-isLukns 
salem.'  That  city  stood  foremost  in  the  work  of  persecution  and 
bloodshed.  Luke  here  inserts  the  apostrophe  beginning,  '  0  Jeru- 
salem, Jerusalem,'  which  Alford  considers  to  be '  in  too  close  connexion 
with  the  preceding  to  allow  of  the  supposition  that '  it  was  'inserted 
unchronologically,  as  many  suppose.'  If,  however,  Luke  had  only 
the  saying,  with  nothing  to  guide  him  as  to  its  proper  place,  he  would 
naturally  insert  it  in  connection  with  the  word  Jerusalem.  It  tallies 
so  closely  with  23  ]\Iatthew  37 — 39,  that  it  will  be  best  to  take  the 
]>assages  together.  Here  in  Luke  the  apostrophe  seems  out  of  place  : 
'  your  liouse  is  lefo  unto  you,'  could  only  be  spoken  appropriately  to 
dwellers  in  Jerusalem  ;  and  'ye  shall  not  see  me,'  would  be  a  strange 
expression  to  apply  to  them  at  a  time  when  Jesus  was  actually 
journeying  towards  Jerusalem. 

The  party  hostile  to  Jesus  appears  to  have  maintained  everywhere 
and  always  a  watch  over  his  actions.  On  a  sabbath  day  (it  would 
seem  to  have  been  during  this  journey),  he  entered  the  house  of  a 
Pharisee  who  stood  in  high  repute,  to  partake  of  liis  hospitality. 
There,  as  usual,  the  eyes  and  ears  of  critics  were  on  the  alert.  '  And  i-J  i'''i«^  i 
it  came  to  pass,  when  he  went  into  the  house  of  one  of  the  rulers  of 
the  Pharisees  on  a  sal^bath  to  eat  bread,  that  they  were  watching 
him.'  Immediately  facing  Jesus  was  a  man  suffering  from  dropsy. 
'  And  behold,  there  was  before  him  a  certain  man  which  had  the  „  -i 
dropsy.'  It  is  not  said  that  he  was  one  of  the  guests,  nor  must  it 
necessarily  be  assumed  that  he  was  inside  the  Pharisee's  house. 
Young's  version  points  the  other  way  :  '  On  his  going  into  the  house 
.  .  .  there  was  a  certain  dropsical  man  before  him," — placed  at  the 
entrance,  right  in  the  way  of  Jesus,  obviously  with  a  desire  and 
expectation  of  a  cure.  Thereupon  Jesus  turned  to  the  lawyers  and 
Pharisees  surrounding  him,  and  asked  their  opinion.  'And  Jesus  „  3 
answering  spake  unto  the  lawyers  and  Pharisees,  saying,  Is  it  lawful 
to  heal  on  the  sabbath,  or  not  'i '     The  words  '  or  not '  have  been 


148  THE    KING    AND    THE    KINGDOM:  [i'art  ii. 

added  by  the  Ptcvisers,  being  in  the  two  oldest  MSS.  Xo  answer 
i Luke 4  was  givcn  to  the  question.  'Bat  they  held  their  peace.'  They 
could  not  venture  a  plain  '  yes '  or  '  no.'  Xo  one  of  them  had  the 
courage  of  his  convictions  ;  probably  they  halted  between  two 
opinions,  afraid  to  break  God's  law,  yet  by  no  means  sure  about  their 
accustomed  rigid  interpretation  of  it.  Jesus  was  not  troubled  with 
4  any  such  doubts  or  scruples.  'And  he  took  him,  and  healed  him, 
and  let  him  go.'  Tischendorf  renders  :  '  And  he  took  hold  of  and 
cured  him,  and  sent  him  away.'  Young  :  '  And  having  taken  hold 
of  him,  he  healed  him,  and  sent  him  away.'     Then,  to  those  who  had 

„  5  refrained  from  answering  his  former  question,  he  put  another.  '  And 
he  said  unto  them.  Which  of  you  shall  have  an  ass  or  an  ox  fallen 
into  a  well,  and  will  not  straightway  draw  him  up  on  a  sabbath  day?' 
The  Revisers  have  altered  '  pit '  in  the  Authorised  Version  to  '  well.' 
joim  11,12  The  word,  phrcar,  is  rendered  '  well '  in  the  passage,  '  the  well  is  deep 
.  .  .  which  gave  us  the  well,'  and  it  is  defined  :  '  a  well ;  or  more 
commonly  a  water  tank,  cistern,  reservoir.'  The  idea  conveyed  is  an 
impending  death  by  water,  and  an  analogy  may  have  been  intended 
to  the  disease  from  which  the  man  suffered  :  he  was  '  dropsical,' 
hudrdpikos,  which  is  derived  fron  liudor,  '  water.'  Instead  of  '  ass  ' 
Tischendorf  renders  '  son,'  on  the  authority  of  the  Vatican  and 
Alexandrine  MS.,  but  the  older  Sinaitic  MS.  has  '  ass.'  The  Revisers 
note  that  '  many  ancient  authorities  read  a  son.''  Alford  observes  : 
'  This  reading,  which,  from  the  weight  of  ancient  testimony  in  its 
favour,  evidently  was  the  original,  seemed  incompatible  with  the 
supposed  argument  from  the  Jess  to  the  r/reater :  sou  was  therefore 
altered  to  'ass'  (as  in  ch.  xiii.  15)  or  sheep,  as  one  of  our  ancient 
MSS,  has  it.'  The  argument  of  .lesus  was  a  crushing  one.  Who 
could  deny  that  the  instinct  of  humanity  was  a  suflRcieut  guide  ? 
When  danger  threatened,  and  help  could  be  given,  who  would  stop 
to  debate  nice  questions  of  Sabbatarian  ritualism  ?  Once  more,  those 
4  Luke  G  addressed  were  dumb.  '  And  they  could  not  answer  again  unto  these 
things.' 

If  others  were  watching  Jesus,  he  also  was  watching  them,  though 
in  a  very  different  spirit.    His  observation  and  criticism  were  directed 

:,  7  to  their  benefit,  and  led  him  to  deliver  a  shoi't  parable.  '  And  he 
spake  a  parable  unto  those  which  were  bidden,  when  he  marked  how 
they  chose  out  the  chief  seats.'  The  Revisers,  agreeing  with  Tischen- 
dorf, have  altered  '  rooms  '  to  '  seats  ; '  Alford  to  '  places.'  Young 
renders  :  '  And  he  spake  a  simile  to  those  called,  marking  how  they 
were  choosing  out  the  first  couches.'  Tischendorf  inserted  a  special 
note,  that  the  proper  translation  is,  '  how  they  were  choosing  out.' 
Not  to  offend  needlessly  the  susceptibilities  of  his  hearers,  yet  at  the 
same  time  to  make  the  application  of  the  parable  sufficiently  olivious 
Jesus,  whilst  alluding  to  a  feast,  specified  one  of  a  different  kind  : 

:,  7, 8  '  Saying  unto  them.  When  thou  art  bidden  of  any  man  to  a  marriage- 
feast,  sit  not  down  (Gr.  rcchne  not)  in  the  chief  seat.'  Young 
renders  :  '  When  thou  raayest  be  called  by  any  one  to  marriage 
feasts,  thou  mayest  not  rechne  on  the  first  couch.'  By  using  the 
plural,  '  marriage  feasts,'  the  parable  was  still  more  generalised,  and 
therefore  less  liable  to  give  offence.  The  same  remark  applies  to  the 
rendering,  '  thou  mayest  not  recline  on  the  first  couch  : '  there  is  a 
touch  of  delicate  feeling  in  thus  assuming  that  ordinary  courtesy  and 


i-AKT  II.]        A    STUDY    OF    THE    FOUR    GOSPELS.  14!) 

self-respect  dictated  this  as  a  matter  of  course.  If,  perchance,  a 
licrsou  should  foro'et,  in  carin<^-  lor  himself,  Avhat  was  due  to  others, 
lie  wnuld  run  the  risk  of  beins^  unpleasantly  reminded  of  his  selfish 
l)reach  of  etiquette:  'lest  ha])ly  a  more  honourable  man  than  thou  i^  i-ui^t 
bo  bidden  of  him,  and  he  that  bade  thee  and  him  shall  come  and  say 
to  thee,  (Jive  this  man  place  :  and  then  tliou  shalt  bep;in  with  shame 
to  take  the  lowest  place.'  Xothing'  beyond  a  passing  discomfort,  an 
admission  of  error,  a  feelinii"  of  mortification,  a  sense  of  one's  own 
dignity  being  lessened  by  contrast  with  that  of  a  superior,  would 
ensue.  But  it  would  be  wiser  and  pleasanter  to  anticipate  and  avoid 
such  a  result,  and  to  form  the  habit  of  erring,  if  at  all,  on  the  safe 
side  in  a  point  of  precedence.  .Uather  than  run  the  risk  of  claiming 
too  much,  it  would  be  better  to  keep  quite  in  the  background.  '  But 
when  thou  art  bidden,  go  and  sit  down  in  the  lowest  place.'  The 
duty  of  seating  the  guests  properly  devolves  upon  the  host,  and  he 
must  needs  fulfil  the  responsibilities  of  his  position.  If  there  should 
have  been  an  unseemly  scramble  for  places,  he  will  quietly  and 
courteously  sec  to  its  rectification,  and  will  take  care  that  each  guest 
at  his  table  is  treated  with  tiie  respect  due  to  his  acknowledged  rank 
and  character  :  '  that  when  he  that  hath  bidden  thee  cometh,  he  may 
say  to  thee.  Friend,  go  up  higher.'  Such  an  experience  would  be 
pleasant  and  honourable,  the  reverse  in  all  respects  of  the  other. 
*  Then  shalt  thou  have  glory  in  the  presence  of  all  that  sit  at  meat 
with  thee.'  The  Eevisers  have  altered  '  worship '  to  '  glory,'  agreeing 
with  Tischendorf  and  Young.  They  have  also,  on  the  authority  of 
the  three  oldest  MS8.,  inserted  the  word  '  all.' 

Had  Jesus  added  nothing  to  the  parable  by  way  of  exj^lanation,  it 
would  liave  been  scarcely  safe  and  wise  for  us  to  enlarge  its  applica- 
tion. In  this  instance,  we  are  specially  told  that  he  was  rebuking  a 
fault  of  disposition  and  conduct  which  had  just  come  under  his 
observation.  Why  should  we  take  upon  ourselves  to  extend  the 
parable  ?  Alford  assumes  much  when  he  says  :  '  The  whole  of  this 
lias,  besides  its  plain  reference,  a  deeper  one,  linked  into  it  by  the 
important  word  wedd'tmi,  carrying  with  it  all  that  meaning  which  it 
always  has  when  relatiny  to  tite  kingdoiii  of  Gud.  Both  senses  are 
olnious.'  This  means  that  the  Avords, '  When  thou  art  bidden  of  any 
man  to  a  marriage  feast,'  must  of  necessity  signify  the  invitation  to 
enter  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  the  '  host '  representing  either  fiod  or 
Jesus.  Such  a  mode  of  interpretation  being  adopted,  theologians 
are  free  to  exercise  their  fancies  and  air  their  favourite  dogmas  to 
their  hearts'  content.  In  this  case,  however,  difficulties  arise  in 
attempting  to  unravel  this  '  deeper  reference.'  No  sooner  does 
Alford  say,  '  Both  senses  are  obvious,'  than  he  feels  bound  to  qualify 
the  assertion,  adding  :  '  and  only  one  remark  needed.'  Here  it  is  : 
■  That  all  that  fahe  humility,  by  which  men  put  themselves  lowest 
and  dispraise  themselves  of  set  /wrpose  fo  he  placed  liiiiher,  is,  by  the 
\-ery  nature  of  our  Lord's  parable,  e.rcluded :  for  that  is  not  bona  fide 
abasing  one's  self.  The  exaltation  at  the  hands  of  the  Host  is  not  to 
be  a  purposed  end  to  the  guests,  but  will  follow  true  humility.'  The 
parable  standing  in  its  simplicity,  and  the  application  which  Jesus 
makes  from  it,  are  free  from  such  entanglements,  and  require  no  such 
(cautions  against  misapprehension.  AVhy  should  it  be  considered 
beneath  the  dignity  of  so  great  a  Teacher  to  seize  the  occasion  for 


150  THE   KING    AND    THE    KINGDOM:  [part  n. 

reproving-  the  vice  of  self-esteem  and  eulogising  the  opposite  virtue, 
even  were  that  his  only  object  ?  Ti'ue,  Luke  calls  the  discourse  '  a 
parable,'  but  it  was  spoken  not  of  set  purpose,  as  a  simile  deliberately 
chosen  to  illustrate  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  like  many  other  parables, 
but  casually,  on  witnessing  the  behaviour  of  some  of  the  guests,  to 
whom  it  conveyed  a  necessary  lesson  of  good  manners  and  right 
feeling.  Jesus  did,  however,  see  fit  to  deduce  from  the  parable  a 
particular  conclusion,  and  to  the  application  which  he  himself  has 
made  we  shall  do  well  to  restrict  ourselves.     The  inference  he  drew 

14  Luke  11  stands  out  clearly.  '  For  every  one  that  exalteth  himself  shall  l)e 
humbled,  and  he  that  humbleth  himself  shall  be  exalted.'  Youug, 
by  putting  the  present  tense  in  a  different  form,  indicates  a  habit  of 
mind  and  action  :  '  For  every  one  who  is  exalting  himself  shall  be 
humbled,  and  he  who  is  humbling  himself  shall  be  exalted.'  The 
human  aspect  in  the  parable  is  most  prominent.  The  guests  are 
fellow-men,  and  the  placing  of  each  is  in  accordance  with  his 
recognised  social  status.  Nor  is  *  he  that  bade  thee  and  him ' 
necessarily  to  be  interpreted  as  representing  God.  Jesus  avoids 
giving  any  mark  of  distinction  or  superiority  to  the  host.  He  is  not 
described  as  a  king,  nor  is  there  anything  to  indicate  that  he  was 
superior  in  rank  to  any  of  the  guests.  AVe  are  simply  led  to  con- 
template society  as  it  exists,  each  individual  entitled  to  occupy  a 
certain  position,  the  majority  falling  naturally  into  their  appropi'iate 
places,  but  some  over-estimating  their  own  importance,  ambitious  of 
distinction,  not  caring  whose  may  be  the  place  they  seize  if  only  it 
be  within  their  reach  and  sufficiently  conspicuous.  That  is  an  out- 
rage which  Society  will  not  long  endure.  The  imposter  is  detected, 
and  the  man  of  real  worth  is  welcomed.  The  shame  of  rejection  may 
be  more  personal  than  public,  but  the  chorus  of  approval  when  true 
merit  is  advanced  to  the  front  is  loud  and  universal :  '  then  shalt 
thou  have  glory  in  the  presence  of  all.'  Jesus  traces  to  its  som'ce  the 
law  of  degradation  and  elevation.  The  former  springs  from  self- 
exaltation,  the  latter  from  humility.  At  all  times,  and  on  every 
side,  we  may  see  this  law  at  work ;  and  as  human  society  advances 
towards  the  ideal  of  Christianity,  the  process  of  selection  will  become 
more  refined,  accurate  and  discriminating,  the  Church  will  be  jiurged 
from  the  curse  of  selfish  ambition,  and  through  the  docility  whicli 

.'. Cii.  26  becomes  us  as  'sons  of  God,  through  faith,  in  Christ  Jesus,'  we  shall 
pass  onwards  from  our  humble  infancy  to  the  perfection  of  his  glorious 
manhood.  '  For  every  one  that  exalteth  himself  shall  be  humbled, 
and  he  that  humbleth  himself  shall  be  exalted.'  The  law  is  universal : 
'every  one.' 

Jesus  addressed  to  his  host  a  few  words  of  friendly  counsel,  con- 
ceived in  the  highest  spirit  of  charity.  Such  entertainments  as  he 
was  accustomed  to  give  were  not,  as  was  evident  on  this  occasion, 
without  their  drawbacks.  A  desire  for  precedence  was  observable 
among  the  guests,  with  respect  to  which  it  might  be  necessary  for 
the  host  to  interfere.  AVhy  should  he  not,  for  once  at  least,  resolve 
to  change  his  company  ?  Instead  of  inviting  a  distinguished  assembly, 
let  him  throw  open  his  doors  and  extend  his  hospitality  to  the  poorest 
and  most  miserable.  As  it  was,  there  was  a  constant  round  of  visit- 
ing and  feasting,  every  man  of  high  position  deeming  it  a  dutyto 
return  the  invitation.     No  benefit  Avas  conferred,  no  sentiment  of 


PART  II.]         A    STUDY    OF    THE    FOUR    GOSPELS.  151 

gnititude  evoked :  tlie  liost  to-day  became  tlie  guest  to-morrow. 
There  was  no  sco))e  in  that  ceaseless  pursuit  of  mutual  pleasure  for 
the  blessing  which  attaches  to  pure,  uuseltish  benevolence.  Some- 
thing better  ought  to  be  attempted.  'And  he  said  to  him  also  that  )4LukciL' 
had  bidden  him,  When  thou  makest  a  diinier  or  a  supper,  call  not 
thy  friends,  nor  thy  brethren,  nor  thy  kinsmen,  nor  rich  neighbours ; 
less  haply  they  also  bid  thee  again,  and  a  recompense  be  made  thee.' 
But  setting  aside  conventionalities,  let  him  issue  invitations  to  a  class 
with  whom  he  had  hitherto  contracted  no  friendships,  among  whom 
he  had  no  relatives,  and  who  could  boast  of  nothing  in  the  shape  of 
wealth  or  social  status.  Let  him  welcome  the  poor,  and  those  of 
them  especially  who  through  accident  or  infirmity  were  unable  to  helj) 
or  raise  themseh'cs,  as  others  might,    '  But  when  thou  makest  a  feast,  '- 

bid  the  poor,  the  maimed,  the  lame,  the  blind.'  Such  a  social  inno- 
vation, however  it  might  be  criticised,  would  have  a  happy  effect 
upon  himself:    'and  thou  shalt  be  blessed  (happy — Young).'     The  h 

very  impossibility  of  any  return  being  made  to  him  would  constitute 
the  charm  and  sweetness  of  his  hospitality:  '  because  they  have  not  „  u 
iL'herewHk  to  recompense  thee.'  Not  here,  l)ut  in  the  next  life,  when 
the  distinctions  between  mankind  will  be  reduced  to  the  one  point  of 
character,  two  classes  only  being  recognised,  the  just  and  the  unjust, 
his  neighbourly  and  compassionate  liberality  would  l)e  reciprocated. 
^  For  thou  shalt  be  recompensed  in  the  resurrection  of  the  just.'  .,  i4 
Sharpe  uses  the  words  ' repayment,  repaid,'  instead  of  'recompense, 
recompensed '  ;  and  certainly  a  repayment  in  kind  seems  to  be  in- 
tended. We  have  here  a  hint  or  two  with  respect  to  the  arrange- 
ment of  society  in  the  future  life  :  the  poor  in  this  world  may  become 
rich  in  tlie  next,  and  the  remembrance  of  past  kindnesses  will  survive 
the  shock  of  death  and  flight  of  time.  Jesus  holds  out  to  '  the  just ' 
a  pleasant  prospect  of  life  in  the  world  to  come.  Alford's  note  on 
the  words,  '  the  resurrection  of  the  just,'  is  as  follows  :  '  The  first 
resurrection,  here  distinctly  asserted  by  our  Lord  ;  otherwise  the 
words  of  the  just  wonld  be  vapid  and  unmeaning.  See  1  Cor.  xv.  i'2  ; 
1  Thess.  iv.  16  ;  Rev.  xx.  4,  5.'  This  blending  together  of  Scriptural 
passages  with  the  view  of  establishing  a  doctrine  not  clearly  revealed 
in  any  one  of  them,  is  a  practice  which  needs  cautious  watching,  and  is 
always  open  to  suspicion,  so  much  depending  upon  the  tone  of  the  com- 
mentator's mind  and  on  the  ease  with  which  a  word  or  form  of  speech 
in  the  original  maybe  misapprehended  and  unintentionally  perverted. 
The  apostle  Paul  touched  on  this  matter  :  '  Having  hope  towards  -.m  Acts  ir, 
God,  which  these  also  themselves  look  for  (or,  accept),  that  there 
shall  be  a  resurrection  both  of  the  just  and  unjust.'  From  this  it  is 
evident  that  it  was  a  settled  article  of  belief  among  the  orthodox 
Jews  that  there  would  be  a  universal  resurrection,  and  in  connection 
therewith  a  division  of  mankind  into  two  classes,  the  just  and  the 
unjust.  Alford's  argument  that  the  mention  of  the  resurrection  of  the 
just  indicates  that  there  will  not  only  be  a  distinction  into  two 
classes,  but  a  separation  in  point  of  time  in  the  resurrection  of  the 
two,  is  scarcely  consistent  with  the  idea  conveyed  by  Paul's  expres- 
sion, '  a  resurrectiou  of  the  just  and  of  the  unjust  : '  he  speaks  not  of 
two  resurrections,  but  of  one.  Let  ns  examine  the  passages  alluded 
to.  '  But  now  hath  Christ  been  raised  from  the  dead,  the  firstfruits  i j  i.  Cor.  -m- 
of  them  that  are  asleep.     For  since  by  man  came  death,  by  man  came  ''^ 


152  THE    KING    AND    THE    KINGDOM:  [pakt  ii. 

also  the  rcsniTection  of  the  dead.  For  as  in  Adam  all  die,  so  also  in 
Christ  (Gr.  the  Christ)  shall  all  be  made  alive.  But  each  in  his  own 
order  :  Christ  the  firstfruits  ;  then  they  are  Christ's,  at  his  coming 
(Gr.  presence).'  Observe  :  it  is  not  said  that  Christ  was  raised  from 
death,  but  '  from  the  dead.'  It  is  important  to  bear  the  distinction 
in  mind.  The  German  version  shows  '  the  dead  '  as  a  plural  substan- 
tive, equivalent  to  '  dead  persons  '  :  '  auferstauden  von  den  Todten,' 
'  risen  up  from  those  who  are  dead.'  Dead  persons  had  been  raised 
before  Christ  died,  as  is  evident  from  the  appearing  of  Moses  and 
Elijah,  and  by  the  argument  of  Jesus  that  the  mention  of  Abraham, 

■20  Lnko  :•.:  Isaac  and  Jacob,  living  after  death,  was  proof  that  '  the  dead  are 
raised.'  Obviously,  the  sense  in  which  the  apostle  alludes  to  Christ 
as  '  the  firstfruits  of  them  that  are  asleep,'  is  that  of  the  presentation 
of  the  firstfruits  to  God  under  the  Mosaic  law.     Jesus  has  gone,  first 

7  Acts :,(;  and  foremost  of  mankind,  to  the  divine  presence,  '  the  Son  of  man 
standing  on  the  right  hand  of  God.'  Pursuing  that  idea,  the  apostle, 
having  spoken  of  '  the  dead,'  not  as  extinct  but  as  '  them  that  are 
asleep,'  tells  how  all  in  Christ  shall  be  'made  alive,'  quickened  into 

■i  Col.  3  active  vitality  ;  as  elsewhere  :  'Your  life  is  hid  with  Christ  in  God.' 
Then  he  adds  :  '  But  each  in  his  own  order  (rank — Englishman's 
Greek  New  Testament) '  ;  not  each  of  the  two  classes,  but  each 
individual.  And  that  this  means  an  order  in  rank  or  place,  not  in 
time,  is  evident  from  what  follows  :  '  Christ  the  firstfruits,'  the  fore- 
most, honoured,  accepted  representative  of  humanity :  'then  they  that 
are  Christ's  at  his  presence.'     All  this  has  no  bearing  on  the  question 

4i.  Thess.  of  two  resurrectious.  Take  the  next  passage:  'We  that  are  alive, 
1^'^^"  that  ai'e  left  unto  the  coming  (Gr.  presence)  of  the  Lord,  shall  in  no 
wase  precede  them  that  are  fallen  asleep.  For  the  Lord  himself  shall 
descend  from  heaven  with  a  shout,  with  the  voice  of  the  archangel, 
and  with  the  trump  of  God  :  and  the  dead  in  Christ  shall  rise  first : 
then  we  that  are  alive,  that  are  left,  shall  together  wdth  them  be 
caught  up  in  the  clouds,  to  meet  the  Lord  in  the  air,  and  so  shall  we 
ever  be  with  the  Lord.'  The  apostle  begins  by  asserting  that  the 
living  will  have  no  precedence  over  the  dead.  He  represents  the 
arrival  of  a  moment  of  crisis  and  culmination,  Jesus  descending 
fi'om  heaven,  as  the  great  Captain  of  our  salvation,  a  shout  oi' 
triumph  raised,  a  word  of  command  uttered  by  a  'chief  messenger^ 
(Young),  and  God's  trumpet  sounded  as  a  signal  understood,  expected 
and  to  be  obeyed.  The  language  is  highly  figurative.  '  The  dead  in 
Christ  shall  rise  first.'  Whence?  We  know  not.  Whither?  *Te> 
meet  the  Lord  in  the  air,'  the  living  also  being  'caught  away  in 
clouds '  (Young).  That  is  the  rising,  or  uprising,  here  spoken  of. 
Those  '  asleep '  are  not  described  as  raised  from  death  at  that  instant, 
for  in  the  previous  verse  it  is  said  that  Jesus  will  bring  them  with 
him,  so  that  they  in  fact  will  rise  first  to  meet  him,  taking  precedence 
of  the  living.  The  rising  '  first '  has  no  reference  to  the  idea  of  two 
resurrections,  that  of  the  just  j^rior  to  that  of  the  unjust. 

The  last  passage  to  which  Dean  Alford  referred  is  one  of  deepest 

L'o  iiov.  4-c  mystery.  '  And  I  saw  thrones,  and  they  sat  upon  them,  and  judge- 
ment was  given  unto  them  :  and  /  saw  the  souls  of  them  that  had 
been  beheaded  for  the  testimony  of  Jesus,  and  for  the  word  of  God, 
and  such  as  worshipped  not  the  beast,  neither  his  image,  and  received 
not  the  mark  upon  their  forehead  and  upon  their  hand  ;  and  they 


i'AUT  ii.J  J     .STUDY    or    Tin:    Foi'R    ilOSi'ELS.  LXJ 

li\e(l  ami  reiii'ued  with  Christ  a  thousand  years.  The  rest  of  the 
(lead  lived  not  until  the  thousand  years  should  he  finished.  This  is 
t  he  first  resurrection.  Blessed  and  holy  is  he  that  hath  part  in  the 
hrst  resurrection:  over  these  the  second  death  hath  no  power  (or, 
authority)  ;  but  they  shall  be  priests  ol'  (Jod  and  of  Christ,  and  shall 
I'eigu  with  him  a  thousand  years.'  One  is  soon  lost  and  bewildered 
in  wanderiufi-  through  the  marvellous  symbolism  and  imagery  of  the 
Book  of  the  llevelation.  Probably  this  passage  is  the  origin  of  the  idea 
that  the  resurrection  to  life  of  all  mankind  will  be  deferred  to  some 
remote  period :  that  all  of  a  certain  character  will  be  raised  first ;  and 
jiftcr  a  further  period  all  the  rest  of  mankind  ;  and  as  tlie  ex])ression 
•  a  resurrection  of  the  just  and  of  the  unjust '  happens  to  fit  in  with 
tliis  conclusion,  it  has  been  assumed  that  the  passages  may  be  taken 
together,  as  embodying  the  same  doctrine.  Nothing  of  the  kind  can 
be  inferred  safely,  to  say  the  least.  '  Thrones,  and  they  sat  upon 
rhem " :  who  are  '  they  '  ?  Again :  '  The  souls  of  them  that  had  l)een 
heheaded  .  .  .  and  such  as  worshipped  not  the  beast.'  To  apply  a 
l»a«sage  thus  hedged  round  with  restrictions,  doubts  and  uncertainty, 
to  the  destiny  of  the  human  race  in  general,  is  most  unwise.  Looking 
to  the  context,  the  expression  '  the  rest  of  the  dead  lived  not,'  appa- 
rently refers  back  to  the  last  verse  of  the  preceding  chapter  :  '  the  w  Rev.  21 
i-est  were  killed  with  the  sword  of  him  that  sat  upon  the  horse,'  that 
is.  '  them  that  had  received  the  mark  of  the  beast,  and  them  that  "  -" 
worshii)ped  his  image.'  The  events  thus  darkly  foretold  in  con- 
nection with  the  millennium,  can  have  no  bearing  on  any  doctrine 
touching  the  ultimate  fate  of  the  innumerable  generations  of 
mankind. 

The  idea  broached  by  Jesus  of  the  possibility  of  a  return  being 
made  in  the  next  world  for  kindness  shown  in  this,  was  taken  up  by 
one  of  the  guests,  who  ventured  to  address  to  him  an  obser\'ation 
naturally  suggested  by  the  subject.  'And  when  one  of  them  that  ^-n-uice  15 
sat  at  meat  with  him  heard  these  things,  he  said  unto  him,  Blessed 
is  he  that  shall  eat  bread  in  the  kingdom  of  God.'  We  are  so  accus- 
tomed to  restrict  the  term  '  blessed '  to  the  divine  blessing,  that 
Y(jnng's  constant  rendering  of  the  word  as  '  happy '  is  preferabl(;. 
The  happiness  alluded  to  is  not  that  of  the  future,  but  of  the  present : 
it  is  not  '  happy  shall  he  be,'  but  literally,  "  happy  he  that  shall  eat,' 
denoting  a  condition  of  mind  and  being  which  can  afford  to  overlook 
the  present,  be  it  joyous  or  grievous,  in  the  assurance  of  the  future. 
But  Jesus  at  once  started  a  parable  which  plainly  intimated  that  the 
generality  of  men  did  not  so  i)rize  the  heavenly  banquet,  but  were 
immersed  in  other  and  nearer  ambitions  and  enjoyments.  '  But  he  „  K' 
said  unto  him,  A  certain  man  made  a  great  supper  ;  and  he  bade 
many.'  Those  invited  showed,  however,  so  little  inclination  to 
attend,  that  when  the  time  arrived  he  sent  his  servant  round  to  the 
guests  to  urge  their  coming,  everything  being  now  in  readiness  for 
their  reception.  'And  he  sent  forth  his  servant  (Gr.  bondservant)  „  ^r 
at  supper  time  to  say  to  them  that  were  bidden,  Come:  for  all  things 
are  now  ready.'  Alford  omits  'all,*  and  explains  that  it  is  'omitted 
by  several  ancient  authorities.'  It  is  not  in  the  oldest  ]MS.  The 
lievisers  have  retained  the  word,  but  have  italicised  it.  The  message- 
bearer  was  dismissed  with  a  series  of  excuses.  One  and  all  of  those 
invited  offered  an  apology,  more  or  less  plausible,  for  his  refusal. 


154  THE    KING    AND    THE    KINGDOM:  [part  ii. 

'  And  they  all  ^vitli  one  consent  began  to  make  excuse.'  The  word 
'  consent '  not  being  in  the  original,  the  expression  must  not  be  taken 
to  mean  that  a  combined  refusal  had  been  previously  resolved  upon  : 
the  passage  is  literally  :  '  And  began  with  one  to  excuse  themsehes 
all.'  The  first  explained,  courteously,  that  he  was  on  the  point  of 
starting  to  inspect  a  field  he  had  just  purchased.  '  The  first  said 
unto  him,  I  have  bought  a  field,  and  I  must  needs  go  and  see  to  it : 
I  pray  thee  have  me  excused,'  Another  was  anxious  to  test  the  work- 
ing of  a  fresh  purchase  of  oxen,  and  therefore,  with  the  same  courteous 
formality,  refused  the  invitation.  'And  another  said,  I  have  bought 
five  yoke  of  oxen,  and  I  go  to  prove  them  :  I  pray  thee  have  me 
excused.'  Another  gave  as  a  reason,  so  obvious  and  insuperable  as  to 
dispense  with  the  need  of  any  apology,  the  fact  that  he  was  bound  to 
be  present  at  the  festivities  attendant  upon  his  wedding.  'And 
another  said,  I  have  married  a  wife,  and  therefore  I  cannot  come.' 
On  receiving  the  report  of  these  evasive  replies,  the  householder  was 
naturally  moved  with  indignation.  His  supper  Avas  prepared,  but  the 
guests  were  wanting.  Still,  there  were  many  to  be  found  who  would 
appreciate  the  banquet.  So  he  desired  his  servant  to  hasten  to  the 
city,  and  out  of  its  streets  and  lanes  to  assemble  the  poor,  and  among 
them  those  whose  bodily  infirmities  had  reduced  them  to  utter  help- 
lessness and  destitution.  '  Then  the  master  of  the  house  being  angry 
said  to  his  servant  (Gr.  bondservant),  Go  out  quickly  into  the  streets 
and  lanes  of  the  city,  and  bring  in  hither  the  poor  and  maimed  and 
blind  and  lame.'  Having  done  this,  the  servant  reported  that  the 
guests  were  still  small  in  number  compared  with  the  extent  of  the 
house  and  banquet.  'And  the  servant  (Gr.  bondservant)  said.  Lord, 
what  thou  didst  command  is  done,  and  yet  there  is  room.'  Then  a 
wider  circuit  must  be  made,  country  roads  and  byways  searched,  and 
pressure  must  be  put  upon  the  wayfarers  to  accept  the  invitation,  the 
householder  being  determined  to  see  his  Iwuse  filled  with  guests. 
iM  '  And  the  lord  said  unto  the  servant  (Gr.  boiKlservant),  Go  out  into 
the  highways  and  hedges,  and  compel  ihem  to  come  in,  that  my  house 
may  be  filled.'  To  understand  the  bearing  of  the  next  sentence  a 
little  consideration  is  required.  '  For  I  say  unto  you,  that  none  of 
those  men  which  were  bidden  shall  taste  of  my  supper.'  Why  should 
this  have  been  said  by  the  householder  ?  All  expectation  of  those 
first  invited  being  present,  had  been  relinquished.  After  it  was 
known  that  they  would  not  come,  it  would  be  strange  indeed  for  the 
offended  host  to  say  that  they  .shoidd  not  come.  And  why  should 
this  be  said  to  the  servant,  who  knew  all  the  circumstances,  and  could 
not  possibly  suppose  that  those  originally  selected  would  make  au 
effort  now  to  claim  admission  ?  But  it  is  by  no  means  clear,  and 
must  not  be  assumed,  that  the  householder  addressed  these  words  to 
his  servant.  It  is  not,  '  I  say  unto  thee,'  but  '  I  say  unto  jou.' 
Alford  observes  :  '  I  think  with  Stier,  that  our  Lord  here  speaks  i/i 
his  oivn  Person:  nnto  you  will  fit  no  circumstance  in  the  parable  ;  for 
the  householder  and  his  servant  are  alone :  the  guests  are  not  present. 
He  speaks  with  his  usual  For  T  say  unto  ijou,  to  the  company  prese/it : 
and  half  continuing  the  parable,  half  expanding  it,  substitutes  Him- 
self for  the  master  of  the  feast,  leaving  it  hardly  doubtful  who  those 
men  which  were  hidden  are.'  This  remark  must  be  taken  subject  to 
a  slight  but  important  difference  of  rendering  introduced  by  Tischen- 


r.vKT  II.]        A    ^TUDY    OF    THE    FOUU    GLhSFFLS.  155 

(lovf ;  instead  of  :  '  none  of  those  men  which  were  hidden  shall  taste 
of  my  supper,'  he  renders  :  'none  of  those  men  who  have  heen  called 
will  taste  of  my  supper.'  There  is  a  s^-reat  dillerence  between  shall 
jind  iri/l,  whicii  unfortunately  is  not  brouoht  out  distinctly  hy  ordi- 
nary grammatical  construction,  and  this  defect  of  lanu-uage  is  apt  to 
cause  uncertainty  and  mistake.  As  translated  by  Tischendorf  the 
expression  has  a  tone  of  regret,  '  none  .  .  .  will  taste,'  none  are  willing 
to  taste,  'of  my  supper';  whereas  'none  .  .  .  shall  taste'  conveys  the 
idea  of  a  threat  and  forlaiddal.  No  doubt  the  former  is  correct,  the 
latter  incorrect.  Jesus  having  finished  his  jiarable,  reduced  its  appli- 
cation to  this  one  sentence.  Pie  was  like  the  householder  :  his  invi- 
tation to  the  kingdom  of  God  was  not  accepted  by  those  whose  social 
position  recjuired  that  they  should  be  foremost,  and  his  efforts  were 
therefore  of  necessity  directed  to  the  gaining  of  an  influence  over  the 
lower  class,  between  whom  and  the  rulers  and  Pharisees  the  gulf  was 
as  wide  as  that  between  prosperous  men  of  business  and  the  poorest 
of  the  poor.  There  is  nothing  to  indicate  that  Jesns  ever  gained  a 
single  professed  convert  or  follower  from  the  higher  ranks  of  society. 
The  common  peoi)le  heard  him  gladly,  but  his  enemies  could  exclaim 
in  triumph,  'Hath  any  of  the  rulers  believed  on  him,  or  of  therjoinus 
Pharisees  ? '  How  true  and  sorrowful  his  saying  :  '  None  of  those 
men  who  have  been  called  will  taste  of  my  supper  ! ' 

While  Jesus  was  thus  despondent  with  respect  to  some,  he  deemed 
it  necessary  to  repress  the  hasty,  inconsiderate  ardour  of  others. 
Large  numbers  not  only  heard  him,  but  followed  him,  rendered  by 
Young,  '  were  going  on  with  him.'  Jesus  turned  round,  faced  the 
crowd,  and  assured  them  that  this  keeping  by  him,  watching  him, 
listening  to  him,  did  not  and  could  not  amount  to  discipleship.  His 
idea  of  a  disciple  was  a  man  prepared  to  go  to  the  very  extreme  of 
•sacrifice  and  self  renunciation.  '  Now  there  went  with  him  great  u  Luke  25, 
multitudes,  and  he  turned,  and  said  unto  them,  If  any  man  comcth  '^'' 

unto  me,  and  hateth  not  his  own  father,  and  mother,  and  wife,  and 
children,  and  brethren,  and  sisters,  yea,  and  his  own  life  also,  he  can- 
not be  my  disciple.'  The  dedication  of  one's  self  to  the  cause  of 
Jesus  would  necessitate  the  snapping  of  every  earthly  tie,  the 
abandonment  of  all  other  duties  and  relationships,  however  close  and 
sacred,  and  the  sacrifice  of  life  itself.  Even  tliat  strong  language 
Avas  not  enough,  for  Jesus  added  :  '  Whosoever  doth  not  bear  his  own  u  Luke  -2: 
cross  and  come  after  me,  cannot  be  my  disciple.'  We  know  that 
Jesus  anticipated, — for  he  foretold, — his  own  death  by  crucifixion. 
His  mention  of  across  for  his  followers  meant  nothing  less  than  that. 
The  sight,  in  those  days  of  stern  Roman  justice,  must  have  been  a 
common  one,  of  a  malefactor  led  out  to  death  bearing  his  own  cross. 
That  was  the  end  to  which  Jesus  would  have  his  disciples  look  for- 
ward ;  and  he  desired  those  about  him  to  weigh  the  matter  well,  to 
count  the  cost  fully,  before  committing  themselves  to  his  enterprise. 
In  his  usual  way,  he  illustrated  the  subject  by  a  parable.  In  entering 
upon  any  costly  undertaking,  it  was  wise  and  necessary  to  forecast 
the  extent  of  the  probable  requirements  and  resources.  '  For  which  „  2s 
of  you,  desiring  to  build  a  tower,  doth  not  first  sit  down  and  count 
the  cost,  whether  he  have  wlicrcwUJi,  to  complete  it.'  To  leave  the 
work  unfinished  for  want  of  funds,  would  be  a  folly  so  egregious  as 
to  expose  the  builder  to  derision.     'Lest  haply,  when  he  hath  laid      ,,   .29,30 


15G  THE    KlXa    A  A- If    THE    KINGDOM:  [PAiii  ii. 

a  foundation,  and  is  not  able  to  finish,  all  that  behold  begin  to  mock 
him,  saying,  This  man  began  to  build,  and  was  not  able  to  finish.' 
As  though  that  simile  were  not  strona'  enough,  Jesus  put  forward 
another.  He  pictured  a  king  compelled  to  face  the  stern  arbitra- 
ment of  war  ;  and  on  very  unequal  terms,  having  at  his  command 
only  one  half  of  the  forces  likely  to  be  arrayed  against  him.  The 
certainty  of  utter  ruin  in  the  event  of  defeat,  would  impel  to  the 
gravest  and  most  careful  counsel  beforehand  :  the  question  would  be 
earnestly  pondered  whether  the  deficiency  in  numbers  could  be 
counterbalanced  by  superiority  in  valour,  skill,  or  otherwise.  If  not, 
an  ambassador  would  be  forthwith  despatched  to  arrange  terms  of 

;''i,^  peace.  '  Or  what  king,  as  he  goeth  to  encounter  another  king  in  war, 
"  will  not  sit  down  first  and  take  counsel  whether  he  is  able  with  ten 
thousand  to  meet  him  that  cometh  against  him  with  twenty  thousand  ? 
Or  else,  while  the  other  is  yet  a  great  way  off",  he  seudeth  an 
ambassage,  and  asketh  conditions  of  ])eace.'  The  question  of  fighting 
or  capitulating  might  depend,  however,  not  upon  the  most  probable 
issue,  but  upon  the  spirit  of  the  king  and  his  people,  if  they  were 
prepared  to  face  all  risks  rather  than  to  submit  to  a  hateful  foreign 
sway.  Such  were  the  difliculties  to  be  faced  and  the  problems  to  be 
solved  by  those  who  contemplated  discipleship  to  Jesus.  They  were 
called  to  an  undertaking  which  would  swallow  up  the  whole  of  their 
fortune,  to  a  war  to  be  waged  at  heavy  odds,  which  ga\e  no  hope  of 
victory,  but  must  be  fought  out  for  the  sake  of  Jesus  and  of  conscience. 

3n  '  So  therefore  whosoever  he  be  of  you  that  renounceth  not  all  that  he 
hath,  he  cannot  be  my  disciple.'  All  this,  we  may  be  sure,  was  not 
said  without  a  serious  and  definite  purpose.  The  disciples  of  Jesu& 
were  not  mere  investigators  and  adherents  of  a  system  of  philosophy 
or  rehgion,  but  followers  of  himself,  destined  to  go  forth  as  he  did  on 
the  work  of  evangelisation.  It  was  of  the  utmost  importance  to  his 
cause  that  it  should  not  be  undertaken  by  the  Avavering  and  half- 
hearted. He  had  warned  his  twelve  apostles  of  the  persecution  which 
would  surely  overtake  thein,  and  he  desired  that  none  should  join 
them  who  were  not  animated  by  enthusiasm,  ready  to  suffer  the  loss- 
of  all  things,  and  even  to  lay  down  their  lives  for  the  truth's  sake.. 
So  far  was  Jesus  from  inviting  all  to  become  his  disciples,  that  he 
repelled  all  who  were  not  cast  in  the  strongest  mould,  resolute  men,, 
intensely  earnest,  prepared  to  spend  and  be  spent  in  his  service.  It 
is  important  to  recognise  and  emphasise  this  fact,  for  many  readers 
and  expounders  of  the  gospels  are  apt  to  assume  that  every  saying  of 
Jesus  is  of  universal  application.  It  behoves  us  to  study  his  words, 
closely,  carefully,  exercising  common  sense  and  discrimination. 
Those  he  sought  to  keep  back  from  a  profession  of  discipleship  were 
none  the  less  able,  on  that  account,  to  rejoice  in  the  gospel  he  preached 
and  the  truths  he  taught,  to  take  him  as  their  shepherd,  their  life- 
giiide,  their  Saviour,  laying  hold  of  the  promise  of  age-during  life 
through  him.  Jesus  never  called  all  men  to  relinquish  everything 
and  to  follow  him.  Still  less  does  he  do  so  now.  High-flown, 
exhortations  to  that  effect,  however  much  they  may  seem  to  accord 
AVith  his  commands,  are  misplaced,  misleading,  irrational.  A^'^e  dO' 
not,  we  will  not,  we  cannot  act  upon  them.  The  error  of  judgment 
which  leads  to  them  cannot  be  too  strongly  deprecated,  ibr  it  tend&- 
to  the  wounding  of  weak  consciences,  and  to  the  perpetuation  of  the? 


PAKT  II.]        J    i>TUJ)Y    OF    THE   iVUli    GOHl'EL^.  157 

jiornic'ious  idea  that  obedience  to  Christ's  precepts  is  beyond  onr 
reach.  The  great  dread  of  desns  was  lest  men  should  })r(jfess  and 
attempt  too  much,  hastily  and  only  nomiualiy  enrolling'  themselves 
as  his  disciples,  whom  he  had  i)reviousiy  designated  as  '  the  salt  of  -  Mat.  i;; 
the  earth.'  The  simile  was  aptly  chosen,  the  quantity  of  salt  reqnircd 
being  out  of  all  proportion  to  the  enormous  mass  of  food  consumed. 
So,  the  disciples  of  Jesus,  few  in  number,  destined  to  exert  a  wide- 
spread influence,  must  be  selected  with  the  utmost  care,  the  qualities 
and  character  of  each  individual  severely  tested  beforehand,  in  view 
of  the  important  trust  committed  to  him  and  the  severe  strain  and 
trial  to  which  he  would  be  exposed.  If  these  disciples  wavered  in 
their  career,  foiled  in  their  duty,  there  would  be  "none  who  could 
supply  their  place.  Jesus  reverted  to  his  former  simile.  '  Salt  tliere-  u  i.uk.'  -.w 
fore  is  good  :  but  if  even  the  salt  have  lost  its  sa\'Our,  wherewii:h 
shall  it  be  seasoned  ?  '  If  they  failed  to  retain  unimpaired  their 
principles,  their  spirit  of  self-sacrifice,  their  unconquerable  determina- 
tion to  suffer  all  things  for  Christ's  sake,  they  would  become  utterly 
•worthless  to  mankind,  fit  for  no  heavenly  or  earthly  use,  like  salt 
grown  insipid,  which  could  be  turned  to  no  advantage  in  any  way. 
•*  It  is  fit  neither  for  the  land  nor  for  the  dunghill :  men  cast  it  out.'  „  -.v, 
Jesus  deemed  it  so  important  that  this  should  be  fully  understood, 
that  he  urged  every  indi\idual  present  to  hear  his  warning,  that  tliey 
might  act  accordingly.     '  He  that  hath  ears  to  hear,  let  him  hear.'  =.     3^ 

At  this  time  there  Avas  a  large  attendance  of  the  lowest  class  of 
the  people  at  the  discourses  of  Jesus.  '  Now  all  the  publicans  and  lo  Luke  i 
sinners  were  drawing  near  unto  him  for  to  hear  him,'  The  Pharisees 
and  the  scribes  were  much  scandalised  at  seeing  him  encourage 
intimacy  with  the  despised  tax-gatherers  and  with  persons  of 
notoriously  evil  lives.  'And  both  the  Pharisees  and  the  scribes  .,  2 
murmured,  saying,  This  man  receiveth  sinners,  and  eaceth  witii 
them.'  The  Revisers  and  Tischendorf  have  introduced  the  word 
'  both '  as  the  best  reading.  Those  whose  profession  it  was  to 
expound  the  JMosaic  law,  agreed  in  opinion  with  the  strait-laced 
Pharisees  as  to  the  unseemliness  of  the  conduct  of  Jesus.  Not 
satisfied  with  simply  preaching  to  the  people,  he  consorted  with 
them.  The  expression,  'receiveth  sinners,  and  eateth  with  them,' 
indicates  that  Jesus  received  them  as  guests  and  sat  at  the  table 
with  them  ;  and  as  it  was  their  object  to  hear  him,  and  his  to  talk  to 
them,  doubtless  the  meal  was  made  use  of,  as  it  had  been  by  him  in 
the  Pharisee's  house,  as  an  opportunity  of  addressing  them.  It  was 
the  habit  of  Jesus  to  lead  the  conversation  at  such  social  gatherings, 
and  never  was  religious  teaching  presented  under  a  more  charming- 
aspect.  The  sense  of  friendliness  and  nearness  to  the  great  Teacher,  • 
his  affability,  his  -warm-heartedness,  the  simple,  touching  eloquence 
and  self-evident  appropriateness  of  his  parables,  the  rational,  pleasure- 
able  excitement  of  the  mind  naturally  connected  with  the  taking  of 
meat  and  drink  together, — all  these  were  adjuncts  to  his  influence, 
bridging  over  the  gulf  which  separated  class  from  class,  and  liringing 
home  to  the  souls  of  the  listeners  the  feeling  of  a  common  brother- 
hood, and  an  impulse,  a  hope,  a  resolution  towards  self-amendment 
and  self-elevation.  The  scribes  and  Pharisees  betrayed  the  pre- 
judices and  exclusiveness  of  the  spirit  of  class  and  caste.     Jesus 


158  THE    KING    AND    THE    KINGDOM:  [part  ii. 

refused  to  be  bound  by  their  rules  of  propriety.  Their  sanctimonious 
punctiliousness  and  their  love  of  precedence  were  obnoxious  to  him, 
and  he  scrupled  not,  when  occasion  offered,  to  expose  and  reprove 
them.  He  now  repelled  their  ill-natured  and  offensive  criticism,  and 
justified  his  own  conduct,  by  delivering  in  their  hearing-  the  following 

15  Luke  3, 4  parables.  '  And  he  spake  unto  them  this  parable,  saying,  What  man 
of  you,  having  a  hundred  sheep,  and  having  lost  one  of  them,  doth 
not  leave  the  ninety  and  nine  in  the  wilderness,  and  go  after  that 
which  is  lost,  until  he  find  it  ? '  Each  sheep  is  equally  precious  in 
the  eyes  of  the  shepherd,  and  the  sense  of  responsibility  impels  him 
to  seek  the  erring  one.  He  scruples  not  to  leave  his  flock,  safe  in 
their  gregariousness,  for  a  time  ;  and  his  seai'ch  takes  him  to  strange, 
difficult,  dangerous  places,  into  which  no  shepherd  would  think  of 
leading  his  flock.  And  when  he  has  found  the  lost  sheep,  he  carries 
„  ">  it  on  his  back  exultingly.  '  And  Avhen  he  hath  found  it,  he  layeth  it 
on  his  shoulders,  rejoicing.'  The  loss  of  one  sheep  out  of  a  hundred 
was  not  a  thing  to  be  borne  with  equanimity,  and  its  recovery  is 
hailed  with  satisfaction.  It  is  assumed  that  the  fact  of  one  of  the 
flock  being  missed  was  matter  of  notoriety,  of  consternation,  of  con- 
dolence, so  that  when  the  shepherd  returns,  all  his  fellows  are  ready 
to  congratulate  him,  and  he,  in  the  joy  of  his  heart,  summons  them 
'■  '*  to  a  feast,  to  signalise  the  happy  issue.  '  And  when  he  cometh 
home,  he  calletli  together  his  friends  and  his  neighbours,  saying 
unto  them,  Rejoice  witli  me,  for  I  have  found  my  sheep  which  was 
lost; 

The  primary  application  of  the  parable  was  obvious.     Jesus  had 

0  Mat.  36  ijeen  going  about  among  those  who,  to  use  his  own  words,  '  were 
distressed  and  scattered,  as  sheep  not  having  a  shepherd.'  Among 
that  class  his  mission  had  been  most  successful,  and  the  festive  meal 
at  which  his  flock  and  disciples  were  present,  and  which  gave  such 
umbrage  to  Pharisees  and  scribes,  might  be  deemed  his  calling 
'  together  his  friends  and  his  neighbours,  saying  unto  them,  Rejoice 
with  me,  for  I  have  found  my  sheep  which  was  lost.' 

But  Jesus  gave  to  the  parable  a  fuller,  deeper  meaning.  His 
conduct  and  labours,  however  much  they  might  be  criticised  and 
blamed,  were  in  harmony  with  the  spirit  and  practice  of  heavenly 
Beings.  Their  interest  was  engaged  and  concentrated  on  the 
reformation  of  society,  and  to  them  it  was  a  matter  of  rejoicing  when 
one  sinner  was  restored  to  the  paths  of  virtue  and  safety.  The  evil 
thereby  prevented,  the  advance  thereby  gained,  were  more  considered 
than  all  previous  attainments  towards  the  perfecting  of  the  social 
state.  The  well-being  of  any  and  every  individual  is  to  be  desired, 
not  only  and  entirely  out  of  regard  to  his  own  personal  happiness, 
but  because  he  is  a  living  unit  in  the  vast  total  of  humanity.  As 
the  spirit  of  philanthropy  widens,  there  is  developed  an  intense 
interest  in  the  moral  state  of  the  least,  the  lowest,  the  worst  among 

r.  Luke  7     mankind.    '  I  say  unto  you,  that  even  so  there  shall  be  joy  in  heaven 
over  one  sinner  that  repenteth,  morr   than  over  ninety   and   nine 
righteous  persons,  which  need  no  repentance.' 
„    8  Jesus  gave  another  illustration  of  the  matter.     '  Or  what  woman 

having  ten  pieces  of  silver,  if  she  lose  one  piece,  doth  not  light  a 
lamp,  and  sweep  the  house,  and  seek  diligently  until  she  find  it  ? ' 
The  Revisers  note  that  the  Greek  word  used,  dracltma,  was  a  coin 


PART  II.]        A    STUDY    OF    THE    FOUR    GOSPELS.  150 

worth  al)onfc  eight  pence.  The  intrinsic-  \iiUie  of  the  h)st  drachma, 
as  of  tlie  U)st  shcej),  was  not  great ;  but  stress  is  kiid  up<m  the  fact 
that  the  shepherd  had  but  a  hundred  sheep  and  the  woman  only 
ten  draclimas.  The  iUustrations  are  chosen  from  humble  hfe,  tlie 
object  being  to  bring  out  in  each  case  the  vahie  in  the  eyes  of  tlie 
owner  of  that  which  was  lost,  without  which  there  would  have  been 
no  earnest  search  for  it.  The  woman  is  represented  as  extremely 
anxious  and  energetic,  ligliting  the  lamp,  sweeping  the  whole  house, 
and  carefully  examining  every  nook  and  crevice,  until  the  missing 
coin  is  discovered.  Again  it  is  assumed  that  the  fact  of  the  loss,  and 
her  trouble  over  it,  had  been  made  known  to  those  about  her,  and 
when  her  search  has  proved  successful  she  is  overjoyed,  and  calls  her 
women  friends  together  to  celebrate  the  happy  finding.  '  And  when  15  Luket» 
she  hath  found  it,  she  calleth  together  her  friends  (female  friends — ■ 
Young)  and  neighbours,  saying,  Kejoice  with  me,  for  I  have  found 
the  piece  which  1  had  lost.' 

All  this  might  be  taken  as  apposite  to  the  occasion.  Jesus  had 
been  searching  out  among  persons  and  in  i)laces  which  the  Pharisees 
and  scril)es  scorned  to  visit.  He  had  called  together  the  waifs  and 
strays  of  humanity,  whom  he  made  his  friends  and  neighbours,  and 
had  celebrated  the  success  of  his  mission  by  a  friendly  entertainment. 
And  his  supercilious  critics  look  on  disdainfully,  lifting  up  their 
A'oices  in  pious  amazement :  '  This  man  receiveth  sinners,  and  eateth 
with  them  ! '  How  mean,  how  low,  how  destitute  of  self-respect  he 
is  !  Nay  :  but  it  was  they  who  failed  to  realise  the  importance  of  the 
work  in  which  he  was  engaged.  The  sweet  balm  of  social  inter- 
course never  poured  forth  its  fragrance  more  worthily  than  on 
such  an  occasion  as  this,  when  repentant  sinners  yielded  to  truth  and 
righteousness,  and  sought  the  company  of  the  Son  of  man,  who  had 
come  to  seek  and  to  save  that  Avhich  was  lost.  Beings  higher  than 
mankind  w^ere  watching  this  w^ork  of  Jesus,  and  rejoicing  in  its 
results.  '  Even  so,  I  say  unto  you,  there  is  joy  in  the  presence  of  ,.  ii> 
the  angels  of  God  over  one  sinner  that  repenteth.' 

Had  this  statement  been  uttered  by  an  ordinary  mortal,  we  might 
receive  it  as  an  inspiration  of  faith,  a  sublime  flight  of  poetical 
imagination.  But  from  the  lips  of  Jesus  it  is  much  more  than  this. 
The  heavenly  world,  with  all  its  mysteries,  lay  open  to  his  gaze.  No 
other  man  could  have  presumed  to  teach  the  prayer  '  Thy  will  be 
done  on  earth  as  it  is  in  heaven.''  Angels  ministered  to  him  on 
earth  ;  a  voice  from  heaven  proclaimed  his  divine  sonship  ;  Moses 
and  Elijah  held  converse  with  him  on  the  mountain-top ;  the 
departed  spirit  of  one  dead  and  buried  heard  his  voice  at  the  tomb, 
and  came  forth  in  the  body  at  his  call :  he  foresaw  and  foretold  his 
own  death  and  resurrection  ;  angels  sat  watching  by  his  grave,  and 
joyously  proclaimed  its  emptiness, — '  He  is  not  here  ;  for  he  is  risen,  2^  Mat.  g 
e\en  as  he  said  : '  and  when  his  mission  to  mankind  had  been  fully 
accomplished,  his  resurrection-body  soared  above  the  earth,  became 
enfolded  in  a  cloud,  and  was  seen  no  more,  '  two  men  ...  in  white  10  Acts  1 
apparel '  standing  below  to  predict  the  return  of  '  this  same  Jesus 
which  is  taken  up  from  you  into  heaven.'  He  it  is  who  tells  us  that 
'  there  is  joy  in  the  presence  of  the  angels  of  God  over  one  sinner 
that  repenteth.'  The  inhabitants  of  earth  and  heaven  are  linked 
together  by  bonds  of  sympathy  and  mutual  interest,  none  the  less 


IGO  THE    KING    AND    THE    KINGDOM:  [part  ii. 

1  joiin  oi  real  because  to  us  invisible  and  incomprehensible.  '  Hereafter  ye  shall 
see  heaven  open,  and  the  angels  of  Uod  ascending  and  descending 
upon  the  8on  of  man.' 

Surely  these  parables,  thus  viewed,  are  full  of  instruction  and 
interest ;  yet  theological  commentators,  not  satisfied  with  their 
primary,  self-evident  import,  coupled  with  the  momentous  truth 
which  Jesus  brought  out  in  connection  thercAvith,  have  set  them- 
selves to  the  task  of  allegorizing,  amplifying,  decorating  the  parables 
with  touches,  glosses  and  fanciful  interpretations  of  their  own  devis- 
ing. Here  is  Alford's  attempt  in  that  direction  :  '  llie  lost  inece,  of 
inoneij.  In  the  following  wonderful  parable,  we  have  the  next  class 
of  sinners  set  before  us,  sought  for  and  found  by  the  power  and  work 
of  the  vSpirit  in  the  Church  of  Christ.  It  will  be  seen,  as  we  proceed, 
how  perfectly  this  interpretation  comes  out,  not  as  a  fancy,  but  as 
the  vcrij  Jcernel  and  sense  of  the  parable.'  What  an  assumption  ! 
lie  takes  it  for  granted  that  Jesus  did  not  bring  out  'the  very  kernel 
and  sense  of  the  parable,'  but  that  '  the  interpretation  comes  out,' 
that  is,  Dean  Alford's  interpretation.  He  assumes  that  each  of  the 
things  mentioned  in  the  parable  is  itself  a  parable  or  simile  :  the 
woman,  the  house,  the  coin,  the  lamp.  But  that  there  is  room  for 
diiference  of  opinion  as  to  their  significance  is  evident  from  his  first 
remark:  'The  iroman  cannot  be  iJie  CJiiurJi  absolutel//,  for  the 
Church  herself  is  a  lost  sheep  at  first,  sought  and  found  by  the 
Shepherd.'  Observe  the  expressions,  '  absolutely,'  and  '  the  Church 
herself,'  and  the  mention  of '  a  lost  sheep '  in  elucidating  the  parable 
of  a  lost  coin.  This  haziness  of  thought  and  diction  is  not  a  good 
beginning  of  the  exposition.  Alford  is  '  rather '  of  opinion  that  the 
'  house  '  is  the  Church,  and  therefore  he  considers  that  the  '  woman  ' 
must  be — but  let  us  take  his  own  words.  '  Rather  is  the  //OKse  here 
the  Church — as  will  come  out  by  and  by  '  (how  it  comes  out  by  and 
by  is  by  no  means  clear),  'and  the  iromnn  the  indwdling  SpirH 
working  in  it.'  That  is  very  bold,  the  woman  having  '  friends  and 
neighbours,'  who  of  course  must  be  equal  to  her  in  rank  and  famihar 
in  intercourse.  Next :  '  All  men  belong  to  this  Creator-Spirit ;  all 
have  been  stamped  /n'fh  the  image  of  God.'  This  is  an  addition  if  not 
an  improvement  to  the  parable,  which  referred  to  the  coin  but  not  to 
its  image  and  superscription.  Not  satisfied  with  that  touch  of  his 
own,  Dean  Alford  adds  another  :  the  dust  in  the  house,  which  some- 
how was  omitted  to  be  mentioned,  represents  '  sin  and  death  and 
corruption.'  These  are  his  words  :  '  But  the  sinner  lies  in  the  dust 
of  sin  and  death  and  corruption — "wholly  unconscious."'  These 
last  two  words  constitute  an  additional  touch  of  ornamentation  : 
this  lack  of  vitality  in  the  coin  did  not  come  to  the  front  in  the 
parable  itself.  Alford  puts  those  words  in  inverted  commas, 
probably  because  he  took  the  idea  from  Bengel,  whom  he  had  before 
quoted  as  follows  :  '  Bengel,  in  distinguishing  the  three,  says,  "  The 
sheep,  the  drachma,  the  prodigal  son, — signify  respectively,  (1)  the 
stupid  sinner,  (2)  the  sinner  wholly  unconscious  of  the  fact  and  of 
himself,  (B)  the  sinner  conscious  and  of  purpose." '  Ordinary 
readers,  without  the  guidance  of  theologians,  could  have  no  idea  that 
Jesus  intended  to  describe  three  different  classes  of  sinners.  Alford 
proceeds  :  '  Then  the  Spirit,  lighting  the  candle  of  the  Lord  (Prov.  xx. 
27  ;  Zeph.  i.  12),  searching  every  corner  and  sweeping  every  unseen 


I'AHT  II.]        ,4    STUDY   OF    THE    FOUR    GOSPELS.  161 

phxce,  finds  out  tlie  sinner ;  restores  him  to  his  true  vahic  as  made 
for  ( iod's  glory.'  Alford's  choice  of  texts  to  support  his  argument  is 
;i  very  strange  one.  That  from  Proverbs  runs  :  '  The  spirit  of  man 
is  the  lamp  of  the  Lord  ; '  that  from  Zephaniah  :  '  And  it  shall 
come  to  pass  at  that  time,  that  I  will  search  .Jerusalem  with  candles 
( Ifeb.  liimps).'  In  no  way  do  tliese  quotations  bear  out  or  l)earupon 
the  assertion  that  the  '  woman  '  is  to  be  taken  as  representing  tlie 
'  C'lvator-Spirit.'  Jiut  now  Alford  drags  in  '  tlie  ('hurch,'  not  in  the 
high,  Sci-ij)tural  i^ense  of  'assembly,'  but  in  the  low,  common, 
ritualistic  sense  of  an  ecclesiastical  iiititution  :  'This  lighting  and 
sweeping  are  to  be  understood  of  tlie  office  of  the  Spirit  in  the 
Ciiui-ch,  in  its  various  ways  of  seeking  the  sinner — by  the  preaching 
of  repentance,  by  the  Word  of  God,  read,  &c.  Then  comes  the 
joy  again.'  So  the  lighting  of  the  lamp  and  the  sweeping,  are  sym- 
bolical of  the  duties  of  the  ministerial  office  !  What  might  the 
woman's  broom  represent  ?  Why  is  not  that  introduced  as  an  additional 
metaphor,  as  the  '  dust'  was  ?  But  now  something  is  hvowjhl  bi  by 
way  of  corroboration,  simply  on  the  ground  that  it  is  hft  out  of 
the  paral)le !  *  Her  (female)  friends  and  her  neighbours  are  invited  — 
but  there  is  no  return  /tome  now — nor  in  the  explanation,  ver.  10,  is 
there  any  i/i  lu>aveii.''  Simpl}^  one  would  naturally  think,  because 
the  woman,  being  at  home,  could  not  be  spoken  or  thought  of  as 
returning  home,  because  the  parable  did  not  admit  or  need  the  idea. 
Not  so,  says  Alford,  but  '  because  the  Spirit  abides  in  tlie  Church. — 
because  tlie  angels  are  present  in  the  Church,  see  1  Cor.  xi.  10.'  That 
is  the  passage  which  contains  the  puzzling  words,  'because  of  the 
angels.'  Alford  continues  :  'nor  is  it  shall  be  (as  in  ver.  7,  at  the 
return  of  the  Redeemer  then  future),  but  is — the  ministering  spirits 
rejoice  over  every  soul  that  is  brought  out  of  the  dust  of  death  into 
God's  treasure-house  by  the  searching  of  the  blessed  Spirit.'  Here  is 
a  new  parable,  founded  upon  the  original  parable  by  introducing  two 
new  metaphors,  '  the  dust  of  death  '  and  '  (Jod's  treasure-house.'  Not 
l»y  such  additions  and  verbal  trivialities  as  these  can  we  grasp  the 
broad,  o]ien  lessons  designed  to  be  conveyed  by  the  parables.  They 
were  spoken  not  only  to  but  for  those  who  heard  them,  and  who 
c';uld  have  no  conception  of  the  elaborately  wrought  out  and  recon- 
dite meanings  which,  in  the  course  of  centuries,  have  overgrown 
them,  marred  their  charm,  force,  freshness,  and  more  or  less  distorted 
rlie  truths  they  were  designed  to  illustrate. 

It  has  seemed  right  and  necessary  to  criticise  thus  fully  and 
unreservedly  this  tissue  of  exfjlanations  and  arguments,  which  may 
serve  as  a  specimen  of  the  style  of  thought  and  method  prevalent 
amongst  professed  theologians.  No  one  doubts  the  learning,  the 
honesty,  tlie  reverence,  the  earnestness,  the  good  intentions  of  this 
class  of  men.  But  we  are  all  subject  to  the  same  laws  and  limits  of 
development,  and  none  can  rise  above  the  level  of  the  doctrine  he 
has  been  taught  from  childhood  upwards,  except  by  a  long  training 
in  the  direction  of  unfettered,  original,  independent  thought.  It  is 
hard  and  rare  indeed  for  those  who  have  bound  themselves  solemnly 
and  unreservedly  to  the  acceptance  of  authorised  creeds  and  articles 
of  religion,  to  emancipate  themselves  from  that  thraldom.  Every- 
thing is  against  their  doing  so.  At  the  best,  they  can  but  kick: 
against  the  pricks  in  some  things,  and  the  opposition  and  persecution 


162  THE   KING    AND    THE    KINGDOM:  [part  ii. 

thence  ensuing  warn  them  and  their  fellows  against  fnrthev  encroach- 
ments in  the  same  direction.  The  young  clergTman  begins  his  career 
with  a  stock  of  inherited  theological  beliefs,  which  he  no  more  thinks 
of  questioning  and  replacing  by  others,  than  he  would  of  criticising 
grammatical  rules  and  framing  a  new  language  for  himself  and  the 
world.  He  preaches  '  the  truth '  as  he  has  been  taught  it,  and  his 
mind  revolves  continuously  round  the  subjects  with  which  he  deals, 
always  in  the  same  direction.  The  longer  he  preaches,  the  more  does 
this  habit  and  mode  of  thought  become  to  him  as  a  second  nature. 
At  first  he  was  the  obedient,  humble  recipient  of  dogmatic  teaching  ; 
now  he  has  become  himself  a  teacher  and  '  defender  of  the  faith.'  So 
long  as  the  clergy  are  not  left  wholly  free  from  the  first  to  believe  and 
preach  whatever  their  own  minds  and  consciences  dictate,  so  long  will 
their  numbness  of  individual  thought,  their  dumbness  of  enlarged 
ideas,  their  narrowness  of  theological  views,  cling  to  them  and  mar 
their  influence.  One  who  had  escaped  the  trammels  of  ()rthodo>: 
theology,  and  whose  works  are  full  of  a  spirit  and  wisdom  rising  high 
above  the  common  standard,  J.  E.  Channing,  said  truly  :  '  The  con- 
sistency of  great  error  with  great  virtue,  is  one  of  the  lessons  of 
universal  history.  But  error  is  not  made  harmless  by  such  associa- 
tions.' For  that  reason,  it  behoves  us  to  be  on  our  guard  againsu 
error,  and  to  oppose  it  whenever  and  Avherever  it  may  be  found.  The 
responsibility  of  an  author,  dealing  with  the  momentous  subjects  of 
religion  and  morality,  would  be  too  overwhelming,  apart  from  full  and 
free  criticism.  However  honest  and  earnest  our  searchings  after 
truth,  we  are  all  liable  to  error,  and  sometimes  the  more  erroneous  a 
doctrine,  the  more  emphatic  is  its  expression,  and  the  more  tenacious 
one's  hold  of  it.  Thereby  an  evil  influence  has  often  proceeded  from 
the  works  of  good  and  thoughtful  men,  who  would  be  the  first  to  re- 
pudiate their  wrong  conclusions  and  fallacious  arguments,  in  the  light 
of  a  more  perfect  knowledge  and  wisdom.  Take,  as  an  example,  the 
late  Dean  Alford,  wdiose  life  was  spent  in  intellectual  toil,  and  who 
sought  in  all  he  wrote  to  set  forth  and  help  forward  what  he  believed 
to  be  the  true  doctrine  of  Christ.  Xot  one  jot  or  tittle  of  his  wz'itings 
can  be  modified  now.  May  it  not  be,  that  in  that  world  where  we  all 
hope  to  find  more  light  and  truth,  he  will  welcome  as  a  friend  any 
man,  be  he  who  he  may,  who  dealt  boldly  with  whatever  seemed 
wrong  in  his  books,  howe\'er  remorseless  the  exposure  of  their  under- 
lying fallacies  ?  How  unwise,  how  antagonistic  to  truth  and  progress, 
have  been  the  efibrts  made  in  past  times  to  stereotype  the  theological 
ideas  of  one  generation  with  the  object  of  imposing  them  on  the 
next !  And  how  faulty  must  have  been  the  spirit  in  the  Church 
Avhich  has  bowed  submissively  to  such  a  yoke  during  many  succassive 
generations  ! 

Jesus  delivered  a  third  parable,  having  an  obvious  bearing  on  the 
]i,  subject  illustrated  by  the  two  preceding  ones.  'And  he  said,  A  cer- 
■^'  tain  man  had  two  sons  :  and  the  yonnger  of  them  said  to  his  father. 
Father,  give  me  the  portion  of  thy  (Clr.  the)  substance  that  falleth  to 
me.'  The  word  '  thy '  is  introduced  in  italics  by  the  Revisers,  the 
correct  word,  '  the,'  being  banished  to  the  margin.  Why  should  tliey 
have  gone  out  of  their  way  to  insert  a  wrong  word  by  the  side  of  the 
right  word  ?     The  Authorised  Version  has  neither  '  the '  nor  '  thy.' 


PART  11.]         A    STUDY    OF    THE    FOUR    GOSPELS.  163 

Young  and  Tischcndorf  use  '  the,'  the  i-endering  of  the  hitter  being, 
'  Father,  give  me  the  portion  of  the  property  that  falls  to  me,'  Alforcl 
explains:  'Such  a  request  as  this  is  shewn  by  Orientalists  to  have 
been  known  in  the  East,  though  not  among  the  Jews.  The  firstborn 
liad  tii'o  l/iirds  of  the  property,  see  Deut.  xxi.  17.'  Young,  ngreeing 
with  the  Authorised  Version,  has  italicised  the  words  'to  me,'  which 
the  Revisers  have  omitted  to  do. 

The  father  api)ortioned  the  property  as  desired.  'And  he  divided  lOLuke  ij 
unto  theiu  his  living.'  The  Revisers  have  not  italicised  'his,'  which 
was  done  in  the  Authorised  Version.  Young,  following  the  original, 
uses  the  definite  article  in  i)lace  of  '  his.'  Afford  observes  :  '  The 
father,  as  implied  in  the  parable,  reserves  to  himself  the  power 
during  his  life  over  the  portion  of  the  firstborn,  see  ver,  31.' 

The  intention  of  the  younger  son  was  soon  manifested.    He  realised 
the  property,  and  emigrated  to  a  distant  land.     '  And  not  many  days  i- 

after  the  younger  son  gathered  all  together,  and  took  his  journey  into 
a  far  country.'  Xot  co\'etousness,  but  extravagant  self-indulgence  M'as 
his  predominant  vice.  Removed  from  home  influence  and  restraint, 
he  '  scattered  his  property '  (Tis;'hendorf )  recklessly  and  riotously  : 
•  and  there  he  wasted  his  substance  with  riotous  living.'  Ho  far  did  ..  i;i 
he  carry  his  excesses,  that  absolutely  nothing  remained  to  him. 
Then  there  came  a  time  of  great  scarcity  and  privation  throughout 
the  land.  '  And  when  he  had  spent  all,  there  arose  a  mighty  famine  .,  14 
in  that  country.'  In  pro})ortion  to  the  scarcity  of  the  necessaries  of 
life  was  the  difficult}'  of  obtaining  help  or  employment.  A  foreigner, 
however  willing  to  work,  stood  but  a  poor  chance  when  all  felt  the 
pressure  of  the  times.  The  spendthrift  found  himself  reduced  to 
a  very  low  level :  'and  he  began  to  be  in  want.'  In  this  strait  he  ,,  i4 
was  forced  to  seek  a  refuge  anywhere.  He  deliberately  bound  himself 
to  menial  service  in  a  foreign  household.  '  And  he  went  and  joined  .,  15 
himself  to  on*;  of  the  citizens  of  that  country.'  A  stranger  and  an 
outcast,  the  lowest  drudgery  was  imposed  upon  him:  'and  he  sent  ,,  v, 
him  into  his  field  to  feed  swine.'  What  a  repulsi'S'e  (jccupation  that, 
for  a  man  who  had  scorned  to  labour  at  home,  and  who,  rather  than 
do  so  alu'oad,  had  lived  in  folly  and  idleness  until  his  last  coin  was 
epent.  To  Jewish  ears,  the  very  mention  of  his  present  occupation 
would  be  abhorrent,  swine  being  classed  in  tlieir  law  as  unclean 
animals.  80  ill  paid  was  his  labour,  that  he  lived  habitually  in  a 
state  of  semi-starvation,  and  could  have  begrudged  the  swine  the  food 
wath  which  he  fed  them,  a  full  meal  being  now  a  luxury  beyond  his 
reach.  '  x\nd  he  would  fain  have  been  filled  with  the  husks  (Gr.  the  •.  "' 
pods  of  the  carob  tree)  that  the  swine  did  eat.'  Whether  he  stooped 
to  beg,  may  be  in  doubt  ;  but  not  a  hand  was  stretched  out  to  relieve 
his  wants  :  'and  no  man  gave  unto  him.'  His  life  of  enjoyment  had  .,  i« 
vanished  like  a  dream  :  homeless,  friendless,  helpless  now,  he  could 
but  look  back  upon  his  past  career  as  a  period  of  insanity,  a  chaos  (A 
self-delusion,  vanity,  neglected  duties,  lost  opportunities,  a  fitful 
dehrious  fever  which  had  run  its  course,  aud  left  him  weak,  worn, 
Aveary,  but,  thank  God,  sound  in  mind  at  last.  He  could  realise  now 
the  value  of  the  home  he  had  forsaken,  and  think  once  more  of  the 
father  he  had  neglected.  The  scenes  familiar  to  him  from  childhood 
rose  up  before  him, — the  laljours  of  the  well-ordered  household,  all 
the  hired  servaoits  there  rejoicing  in  plenty.     '  But  when  he  came  to      „    it 

M  2 


164  THE    KING    AND    THE    KINGDOM:  [part  ii. 

himself  he  said.  How  many  hived  servants  of  my  father's  have  bread 
enough  aud  to  spare.'  And  here  was  he,  who  might  have  been 
1,-.  Liikc  i7  honoured  as  a  master  over  them,  on  tlie  verge  of  starvation  :  '  and  I 
perish  here  with  hunger,'  Reduced  now  to  the  last  extremity,  no 
longer  deaf  to  self-reproach,  he  resolves  to  take  the  course  which  had 
been  open  to  him  from  the  first.  His  proud  and  obstinate  self-will 
has  melted  away  in  the  fiery  trial,  his  faults  are  patent  to  himself, 
nor  will  he  seek  to  hide  them  from  others,  or  shrink  even  from  open 

„  Is  acknowledgment.  '  I  will  arise  and  go  to  my  father,  and  will  say 
unto  him.  Father,  I  have  sinned  against  heaven,  aud  in  thy  sight,*^ 
He  had  fondly  deemed  himself  above  the  common  lot,  and  despised 
the  humdrum  life  of  daily  toil,  had  lived  for  to-day,  forgetting  the 
morrow,  for  ])leasure,  and  not  for  duty,  and  now  the  retributiA'e 
decree  of  divine  Providence  had  scourged  and  avenged  his  folly.  He 
sees  and  owns  it  all,  taking  shame  to  himself  for  the  unblushing- 
effrontery  with  which  he  had  pursued  his  mad  career  :  he  had  been, 
fighting  against  heaven,  before  his  father's  face  I  It  rises  up  before 
him  now,  reproachful,  amazed,  sorrowful,  as  when  he  first  decided 
upon  his  proudly  independent  course.     He  will  own  himself  unworthy 

,.  r.'  of  his  parentage  :  '  I  am  no  more  worthy  to  be  called  thy  son.'  He 
will  crave  only  some  place  of  servitude  in  the  paternal  home,  wherein 
to  atone  for  the  past,  as  far  as  may  be,  by  docility  and  assiduity : 

,.  i:<  '  Make  me  as  one  of  thy  hired  servants.'  A  long  course  of  misery 
had  been  needed  to  bring  him  to  this  resolution  ;   but  once  taken, 

,.  -"  there  was  no  delay  in  executing  it.  '  Aad  he  arose,  and  came  to  his 
father.'  In  how  terrible  a  plight  must  he  have  been,  as  he  neared  his 
journey's  end  !  And  with  what  mingled  feelings  of  hope,  doubt,  joy, 
dread,  must  he  have  entered  upon  its  last  stage  !  But  while  he  was 
still  'a  great  way  off'  (Authorised  Version),  '3'et  far  distant'  (Young), 
his  coming  was  perceived.  Along  the  road  by  which,  if  ever,  he 
must  return,  the  father's  eye  was  gazing,  aud  as,  at  last — at  last,  his 
son's  well  remembered  form  appeared,  the  father's  heart  rushed  fortli 
to  meet  him.  But  as  he  drew  near  enough  to  be  clearly  recognized, 
what  a  wreck,  what  a  shadow,  what  a  parody  of  his  formei*  self ! 
Emaciated,  footsore,  travel-stained,  a  humbled  spirit  in  an  abject 
form, — oh  !  he  must  not  be  left  thus  one  moment  longer.  The 
father  ran  to  meet  him,  his  loving  arms  once  more  encircled  the  neck 
of  his  erring  child,  and  with  a  shower  of  kisses  he  welcomed  his 

„  -I'  return.  '  But  while  he  was  yet  afar  off,  his  father  saw  him,  and  was 
moved  with  compassion,  and  ran,  and  fell  on  his  neck,  and  kissed 
liim  (Gr.  kissed  him  much):  kissed  him  tenderly'  (Tischendorf).. 
'J'hen,  in  that  first  burst  of  greeting,  on  the  open  road,  the  prodigal 

'•  -'  made  his  humble  confession.  'And  the  son  said  unto  him.  Father,. 
I  have  sinned  against  heaven,  and  in  thy  sight :  I  am  no  more 
vrorthy  to  be  called  thy  son.'  The  Revisers  note  :  '  Some  ancient 
authorities  add  maJic  me  as  one  of  thy  hired  servants.''  That  is  not  in 
the  Authorised  Yerson,  nor  is  it  adopted  by  Tischendorf,  although  it 
stands  in  the  two  oldest  M88,  Either,  at  a  very  early  date,  it  was 
introduced  from  verse  19,  or  omitted  from  this  verse.  It  is  just  such 
an  error  as  would  be  likely  to  arise  in  copying,  and  the  balance  of 
probability  is  on  the  side  of  its  accidental  insertion,  it  being  easy  for 
the  eye  of  the  copyist  to  fix  on  verse  ID.  No  doubt  transcribers  were 
chosen  for  their  superior  skill  in  writing,  and  it  would  be  too  much. 


PART  II.]         A    STUDY    OF    THE   FOUR    GOSPELS.  1«5 

to  assume  that  every  one  of  the  class  was  intelli<i-ent  aud  puncti- 
liously honest.  The  detection  of  an  error  of  this  kind  would  depend 
upon  the  way  in  which  the  original  MS.  w'as  compared  with  the 
copy.  If  the  supervisor  read  out  to  the  copyist,  it  was  in  the  power 
of  the  latter  to  omit  calling  attention  to  what  he  might  consider 
unimportant  discrepancies  ;  and  there  would  be  a  temptation  in  that 
direction,  because  the  accidental  omission  or  insertion  of  several 
words  together  miglit  necessitate  the  re-writing  of  a  sheet  or  more  of 
MS.  We  know  how  easily  printers'  errors  crec])  in,  despite  every 
precaution.  The  original  'proof  is  now  destroyed,  and  the  printed 
book  alone  circailated  ;  but  in  those  days  the  original  MS.  remained 
extant,  as  well  as  tlie  copies.  These  trifling  variations  among  the 
ancient  A-ersions  handed  down  to  us  are  not  to  be  wondered  at.  They 
are  certainly  very  numerous.  The  frequent  alterations  in  the  oldest 
MSS.,  made  '  by  a  later  hand,'  indicate  that  the  existence  of  erroi'S 
Avas  recognised  from  the  first,  and  the  task  of  rectification  under- 
taken. That  task  must  have  been  almost,  if  not  quite,  as  difficult 
then  as  it  is  now. 

Whether  or  not  the  son  actually  made  the  request  he  had  intended, 
it  was  at  once  felt  to  be  an  impossibility  that  his  lather  should  treat 
him  as  a  servant.  On  reaching  home,  the  domestics  were  bidden 
instantly  to  attend  to  all  the  wanderer's  needs.  The  best  robe  was 
selected  for  his  wear,  a  jewel  sjjarkled  on  his  hand,  and  the  weary 
feet  were  fitted  with  shoes.  '  But  his  father  said  to  his  servants  i.j  mke  ■.>•-' 
(ih'.  bondservants).  Bring  forth  quickly  the  best  robe,  and  put  it  on 
him  ;  and  put  a  ring  on  his  hand,  and  shoes  on  his  feet.'  What  a 
transformation  !  AVhat  a  blessed  change  from  squalor  and  degrada- 
tion to  luxury,  refinement,  and  deferential  service  !  The  father's 
heart  overflowed  with  joy.  He  must  needs  arrange  a  feast  to  cele- 
brate his  son's  return.  The  stalled  calf  was  ordered  to  be  killed,  and 
preparations  made  for  a  merry  banquet.  '  And  bring  the  fatted  calf,  •'  ■-•"' 
and  kill  it,  and  let  us  eat,  and  mr.ke  merry.'  No  greater  cause  could 
there  be  for  grateful  rejoicing  :  his  son  had  risen  up  suddenly,  unex- 
pectedly, as  one  from  tlie  dead,  or  like  a  straying  child  found  after 
long  and  anxious  search.  '  For  this  my  son  was  dead,  and  is  alive  ••  -^ 
again  ;  he  was  lost  and  is  found.'  A  joyous  feast  indeed  it  was  : 
^  And  they  began  to  be  merry.'  "     -^ 

What  could  the  i^harisees  and  scribes  say  now  against  Jesus  ? 
What  reproach  was  it  to  him  that  he  had  feasted  with  sinners,  even 
as  this  father  with  his  returned  prodigal  ?  But  Jesus  enlarged  his 
parable,  picturing  therein  the  evil  spirit  and  temper  which  these 
cavillers  had  displayed. 

The  elder  son  as  yet  knew  nothing  of  his  brother's  return,  and 
when  he  came  to  hear  the  news  it  was  with  undisguised  feelings  of 
envy  and  ill-will.  He  was  away  at  the  time,  about  the  farm,  engagetl 
in  his  routine  of  duty.  As  he  drew  near  to  the  house,  what  was  his 
astonishment  to  hear  sounds  of  revelry,  music  playing  and  dancing 
going  on  !  What  craze  was  this  which  liad  come  over  his  old  father, 
— to  make  a  feast,  and  say  nothing  about  it  to  him  ?  '  Now  his  "  -^' 
elder  son  was  in  the  field  :  and  as  he  came  and  drew  nigh  to  the 
house,  he  heard  music  and  dancing.'  Unable  to  divine  the  mystery, 
he  called  one  of  the  servants,  and  asked  what  it  all  meant  ?  'And  •:  ^i- 
he  called  to  him  one  of  the  servants  (Gr.  bondservants),  and  inquired 


IGG  THE    KING    AND    THE    KINCWOM:  [part  ii. 

what  these  things  might  be.'  Then  he  learnt  the  news,  over  which 
la  Luke  I'T  natural  aifection  should  have  prompted  him  to  rejoice.  '  And  he 
said  unto  him,  Thy  brother  is  come  ;  and  thy  father  hath  killed  the 
fatted  calf,  because  he  hath  received  him  safe  and  sound.'  The  elder 
thought  more  about  himself  at  that  moment,  than  about  his  younger 
brother.  A  wave  of  ill-will  and  jealousy  swept  o^'er  his  soul.  His 
dignity  was  hurt ;  his  egotism,  pride,  self-conceit,  perverted  his 
judgment,  and  quenched  alike  filial  respect  and  brotherly  love.  In 
sullen  anger,  he  refused  to  give  a  welcome  to  his  brother,  to  share  in 

„  :.'s  the  festivities,  or  even  to  enter  the  house.  '  But  he  was  angry,  and 
would  not  go  in.'  Thus,  in  the  midst  of  joy,  came  a  sudden,  sharp 
trial  to  the  father's  heart.  It  was  a  sad  presage  for  the  future  ;  it 
would  be  a  terrible  thing  for  him  and  them,  if  these  brothers  should 
not  shake  hands  now,  should  refuse  to  bury  in  oblivion  faults  and 
animosities,  and  so  mar  the  peace  of  the  home  for  ever.     All  his 

„  -js  influence  must  be  exerted  to  reconcile  these  two  :  '  and  his  fother 
came  out,  and  intreated  him.'  But  the  hot-headed  son  began  to 
complain  equally  of  his  father  and  his  brother.  He  was  mightily 
offended  at  the  slight  which  had  been  put  upon  him.  He  considered 
that  he  had  been  treated  with  gross  injustice.  He  had  lived  for  many 
years  a  laborious  and  blameless  life,  but  never  once  had  the  father 
■!>.<  proposed  a  feast  for  him  and  friends  of  his.  '  But  he  answered  and 
said  to  his  father,  Lo,  these  many  years  do  I  serve  thee,  and  I  never 
transgressed  a  commandment  of  thine  :  and  yet  thou  never  gavest  me 
a  kid,  that  I  might  make  merry  with  my  friends.'  But  the  instant 
this  spendthrift  and  debauchee  returns,  a  sumptuous  entertainment  is 
prepared  in  honour  of  the  event,  no  prior  notice  being  sent  to  the 

„  ao  elder  son,  and  no  heed  given  to  his  absence.  '  But  when  this  thy 
son  came,  which  hath  devoured  thy  living  with  harlots,  thou  killedst 
for  him  the  fatted  calf.'  The  fathei-'s  answer  was  grave,  passionless,, 
argumentative.  There  was  no  thought  of  putting  a  slight  upon  the 
elder  son,  who  had  spent  his  life  by  his  lather's  side,  and  was  now 
heir  to  all  his  property.  And  it  was  very  natural  that  there  should 
be  this  outburst  of  rejoicing  on  the  sudden  arri\al  of  him  who  had 

„  31,  :j2  been  as  one  dead  and  lost  to  them  for  many  years.  '  And  he  said 
unto  him,  Son  (Gr.  childj,  thou  art  ever  with  me,  and  all  that  is  mine 
is  thine.  But  it  was  meet  to  make  merry  and  be  glad  :  for  this  thy 
brother  was  dead,  and  is  alive  aijaiii;   and  tras  lost,  and  is  found.' 

The  parable  was  sketched  with  consummate  tact  and  delicacy. 
None  could  take  offence  at  it :  but  how  must  the  career  of  the 
i:)rodigal  have  come  home  to  some  of  those  '  sinners  '  whom  Jesus  had 
not  scrupled  to  receive  and  welcome  !  And  how  accurately  did  the 
ca]3tiousness  and  envy  of  the  elder  brother  portray  the  spirit  by  which 
the  Pharisees  and  scribes  were  animated  !  The  first  and  foremost 
application  of  the  parable  lies  in  that  direction  :  but  as  e^-ery  parable 
is  susceptible  of  a  variety  of  interpretations,  it  is  but  natural  that 
commentators  should  differ  widely  from  each  other  iu  their  attempts 
at  elucidation.  Alford  gives  his  own  views,  and  combats  those  of 
others.  He  says  :  '■A  certain  man, — our  heavenly  Father,  the  Creator 
and  Possessor'  of  all :  not  Christ,  who  ever  represents  himself  as  a 
/Son.  .  .  Tu'o  sons,  not,  in  any  direct  and  primary  sense  of  the 
Parable,  the  Jews  and  the  Gentiles,'  and  so  on.  All  such  interpreta- 
tions are  of  men's  own  devising,  excrescences  to  the  pure  and  simple 


PART  II.]         A    STUDY   OF   THE    FOUR    GOSPFLS.  167 

tcaehini;-  of  Jesus,  ,u,l()sses,  inventions,  Avliich  can  only  be  profitable 
when  held  in  check  wisely  and  reverently,  and  can  scarcely  iail  to  be 
luirtlul  wben  pressed  in  the  shape  of  doomatic  theolo<i,y.  How  comes 
it  to  be  assumed  that  Jesus  intended  bis  paral)k's  to  be  taken  as  illus- 
trations of  truths  or  doctrines  which  he  himself  was  not  teaching  at 
their  first  delivery  ? 

The  last  three  parables  were  spoken  to  the  Pharisees  and  scribes  ;  i-Lukos 
tbc  one  wbich  follows  was  delivered  to  the  disciples:  'And  he  said  k;  luk-c  i 
also  unto  the  disciples '  .  .  It  is  important  to  note  tbis  distinction 
whenever  it  occurs.     The  word  'disciple'  si^'uifies  a  person  who  has 
deliberately  placed  himself  under  the  instruction  and  guidance  of  his 
Teacher.   Not  all  who  attended  the  discourses  of  Jesus  were  disci]jles, 
but  only  such  as  offered  tliemselves  to  him  and  were  accepted  by  him. 
A\'e  have  seen  how  Jesus  bade  men  count  the  cost  before  they  took  n  i.uke  2: 
upon  themselves  his  discipline,  and  what  trials  he  foretold  for  them.  • 

even  to  the  loss  of  all  thing.-;.  'Would  it  not  at  the  time  have  been  a 
palpable  absurdity  to  say  that,  nevertlieless,  every  one  was  called  to 
l)e  his  disciple  ;  that  none  who  believed  in  him  could  refuse  the  title, 
with  its  accompanying  obligations  ?  Is  it  not  equally  absurd  now  to 
assume  that  every  Christian  is,  by  simple  baptism,  either  infant  or 
adult,  enrolled  as  a  disciple?  John  baptised  whole  multitudes,  but 
his  '  disciples  '  were  alluded  to  as  a  body  by  themselves.  It  was  the 
very  essence  of  discipleship  that  the  disciple  should  be,  for  a  time  at 
least,  with  his  Teacher,  should  'come  after'  him,  'follow'  him,  learn 
and  accept  liis  doctrines,  and  devote  himself  to  his  cause.  AVe  read 
of  no  female  disciples :  the  work  of  evangelisation  was  not  suited  for 
them,  nor  they  for  it.  Mention  is  made  of  only  one  woman,  Tabitha, 
under  tliat  designation, — the  only  instance  in  which  the  Oreek  word 
is  in  the  feminine  form,  matlicfria, — and  she  had  evidently  devoted 
herself  entirely  to  a  life  apart  from  worldly  interests  :  'this  woman  0 Arts ?,« 
was  full  of  good  works  and  almsdeeds  which  she  did  : '  her  sphere  of  ,.  :» 
action  was  the  making  of  garments  foi'  the  poor.  In  the  proper  sense 
of  the  word,  only  a  living  Teacher  can  have  '  disciples,'  who,  after 
their  Master's  death,  raise  up  '  disciples  '  of  their  own,  AVe  may 
fondly  deem  ourselves  disciples  of  Jesus,  but  in  reality  we  have 
dwindled  down  to  a  very  different  discipleship,  and  not  one  of  us  in 
a  million  dreams  of  attempting  to  carry  out  every  commandment 
which  Jesus  laid  upon  his  disciples.  Nor  is  it  incumbent  upon  us  to 
do  so.  He  would  have  all  believe  in  him,  but  he  chose,  even  while 
he  lived  on  earth,  few  to  be  his  disciples.  In  the  four  (lospels  the 
word  '  disciple,' y;?«///(?/?s,  occurs  230  times.  In  every  instance  the 
use  of  the  term  indicates  a  clear,  sharp  distinction  between  '  dis- 
ciples'  and  others.  One  passage  only  might  seem,  at  first  sight,  of 
somewhat  doubtful  meaning:  when  the  Pharisees  said,  '  AVe  are  dis- lUnim 28 
ciples  of  Moses ;'  but  no  doubt  they  claimed  the  title  exclusively,  for 
Jesus  said  of  them,  '  The  scribes  and  the  Pharisees  sit  on  Moses'  -j:^  Mat.  2 
seat : '  their  lives  were  devoted  to  the  promulgation  and  enforcement 
of  his  law.  The  true  sense  of  the  word  comes  out  in  the  passage  : 
'  Upon  this  many  of  his  disciples  went  back,  and  avalkkd  xo  more  c,  ,i,,i,nGG 
WITH  HIM.  Jesus  said  therefore  unto  the  twelve,  AVould  ye  also  go 
AWAY?'  And  again  the  statement  that  'Jesus  was  making  and  4  John  1 
baptizing  more  disciples  than  John  (although  Jesus  himself  baptized 


ICS  THE    KING    AXD    THE    KINGDOM:  [paut  ii. 

not,  but  his  disciples).'  Jesus  ccvtaiuiy  did  not  baptize  more  persons 
than  John,  but  '  more  disciples,'  the  disciples  he  had  made  already 
oeing,  it  Avould  seem,  employed  in  administering  baptism  to  those 
who  were  anxious  to  join  them.     Accordingly  we  find  that  Jesus  was 

10  r.uke  1  able  at  one  time  to  appoint  '  seventy  others,'  whom  he  sent  '  two  and 
two  before  his  face  into  every  city  and  place  whither  he  himself  was 
about  to  come.'  Subsequently  to  the  Gospels  the  word  '  disciple ' 
occurs   in   the   Xew  Testament  ;]()  times.     Let   us   examine   those 

r,  Arts  1  passages.  '  When  the  number  of  the  disciples  was  multiplied  .... 
2  the  twelve  called  the  multitude  of  the  disciples  unto  them.'  It  must 
not  be  assumed  that  '  disciples  '  here  is  synonymous  with  'believers.' 
The  contrary  appears  to  l)e  the  fact,  for  the  question  was  as  to  whether 
a  certain  work  should  be  undertaken  by  the  twelve  or  by  other 
disciples.  Seven  of  the  latter  Avere  appointed  '  over  this  business,' 
among  whom  was  Stephen,  whose  life  seems  to  have  been  entirely 
devoted  to  the  work  of  evangelisaticm,  for  we  are  told  that  he 
,.  0  '  wrought  great  wonders  and  signs  among  the  people,'  and  was 
occupied  in  disputations,  until  he  was  brought  to  a  pubh'c  trial  on 
account  of  his  preaching,  and  suffered  for  it  the  penalty  of  death. 
,.  7  '  The  number  of  the  disciples  multiplied  in  Jerusalem  exceedingly  : 
and  a  great  company  of  the  priests  were  obedient  to  the  faith.' 
It  is  not  said  that  the  priests  became  disciples  :  they  could  not, 
their  lives  being  devoted  to  the  performance  of  their  priestly  func- 
tions.    The  title  applied  to  those  who  were  '  obedient  to  the  faith,' 

&  Acts  14  although  not  '  disciples,'  was  '  believers.'  *  And  believers  were  the 
more  added  to  the  Lord,  multitudes  both  of  men  and  women.'     And 

4  i.  Tim.  12   Timothy  was  exhorted  :   '  Be  thou  an  (yisample  to  them  that  believe.' 

iMActsLio     Again:    'Thou   seest,  brother,  how  many  thousands  (fir.  myriads) 
.,     2.j     there  are  among  the  Jews  of  them  which  have  believed.'     'As  touch- 
ing the  Gentiles  which  have  believed.'      Those  myriads  of  Jews  and 
Gentiles  are  not  styled  disciples  :  they  constituted  the  churches  or 
assemblies,   for  whose   formation  and  edification  the   multitude   of 

\:^  Acts  10  disciples  was  required.  '  Why  tempt  ye  God,  that  ye  should  put  a 
yoke  upon  the  neck  of  the  disciples,  which  neither  our  fathers  nor  we 
were  able  to  bear  ? '  Peter's  argument  was  against  compelling  the 
'disciples  '  to  teach  the  (i entiles  that  they  must  be  circumcised  :  that 
doctrine  would  have  been  a  yoke  on  the  teachers'  necks.     We  read 

0  Acts  jii  that  Paul '  assayed  to  join  himself  to  the  disciples  :  and  they  were 
all  afi-aid  of  him,  not  believing  that  he  was  a  disciple.'  Obviously 
Paul's  object  was  to  associate  himself  with  the  disciples  in  their 
work  :  none  would  have  been  afraid  at  his  simply  professing  his  faith 
1  in  Christ.  '  Saul,  yet  breathing  threatening  and  slaughter  against 
the  disciples  of  the  Lord,'  that  is,  against  those  who  were  engaged 
„  :i  in  the  work  of  promulgating  the  hated  doctrine.  '  That  if  he  found 
any  that  were  of  the  AVay,  whether  men  or  women,  he  might 
bring  them  bound  to  Jerusalem.'  To  make  sure  of  getting  at  the 
disciples,  he  desired  to  bring  every  professed  believer  to  Jerusalem  for 
examination.  In  short,  all  the  passages  lead  to  the  same  conclusion  : 
discipleship  to  Jesus,  or  to  his  doctrine,  involves  entire  dedication  to 
his  cause  and  work.  'Believers'  generally  should  be  content  with 
that  humbler  title  ;  and  we  should  ever  bear  in  mind  that  directions 
given  by  Jesus  specially  to  his  'disciples'  are  not  to  be  deemed  of 
universal  application.     Misapprehension   on   this  point  has   led   to 


PAKTii.]         A    STUDY    OF    THE    FOUR    (lOi^FELS.  109 

much  error.     Findiii*^;  that  some  of  the  cdininunds  of  Jesus  are  un- 
suited  for,  and,  in  truth,  ini]iossih!e  of  ,i:^eiicral  adoption,  and  failing- 
to  understand  tliat    they    were    addressed  to  disciples,  and    not    to 
all   believers,    many   thoughtful,  earnest-minded    men    have  looked 
upon  Christianity  as  a  thing  too  hi<^-h  for  them  ;  whilst  those  who 
profess  to  have  devoted  themselves  to  the  work  of  Jesus,  and  who,  as 
jiis  'disciples,'   teachers  of  his  truth,  devotees  to  his  cause,  should 
liave  taken  u])  and  carried  out  nil  his  maxims,  have  made  no  attempt 
to  do  so,  but  have  swum  with  the  tide  of  ordinary  humanity.     The 
evil  takes  two  directions  :  the  religion  of  Jesus  is  deemed  by  some  an 
ideal  system,  too  lofty  and  refined  for  the  grasp  of  (jommon  men  and 
Avomcn  ;  and  those  who  have  made  jjrofession  of  disci])leship,  claim- 
ing the  rank  and  title  of  ministers  and  ambassadors  of  Christ,  have 
never  even  aimed  at  that  ideal  Avhich  Jesus  desired  that  his  disciples 
should  exhibit   to   the   world.     We  are   here  treading   on   difficult 
ground  :    so  much  the   more   need  is  there  for  bold,  free,  careful, 
honest  thought  and  speech.    Jesus  did  not  call  all  men,  but  he  did  call 
#;orae,  to  lead  a  life  conformable  to  his  ideal.     Once,  to  a  young  man 
whom  he  bad  looked  upon  and  loved,  he  said  :    '  If  thou  wouldest  be  lo  -^1;"^  :;i 
perfect,  go,  sell  that  thou  hast,  and  give  to  the  poor,  and  thou  shalt 
have  treasure  in  heaven  :    and  come,  follow  me.'     It   is   open   to 
<luestion  whether  the  doctrine  of  the  cross  is  not  preached  both  too 
high  and  too  low.    The  sheep  and  their  shepherds  cannot  stand  upon 
the  same  level.     The  '  perfect '  life  must  be  entirely  consistent  with 
the  precepts  of  Jesus,  in  the  fulness  of  their  breadth  and  depth. 
■Count  Tolstoi  has   lately  raised  and   grappled   with   this   puzzling 
question.     He   carries   to   its   literal  and   logical   extreme   Christ's 
tloctrine  of  non-resistance.     Unfortunately  he  starts  with  a  wrong 
assumption,  when  he  says  :  *    'In  the  Sermon  on  the  j\Iount,  ad- 
dressed to  all  men,  He  (Jesus)  says  :  "  And  if  anybody  sue  thee  at 
the  law  for  thy  coat,  let  him  have  thy  cloak  also."     Therefore  He 
forbids  our  going  to  law.'     But  the  sermon  on  the  mount  was  not 
'  addressed  to  all  men,'  but  to  the  disciples:    '  And  seeing  the  multi-  o  Mat.  •-> 
tudes,  he  went  up  into  the  mountain  :    and  wdien  he  had  sat  down, 
his  disciples  came  unto  him  :  and  he  opened  his  mouth  and  taught 
them.'     Count  Tolstoi  continues  :  'But  jjcrhaps  this  applies  only  to 
the  relations  between  private  individuals  and  public  courts  of  law  ; 
yet  Christ  does  not   deny  justice   itself,  and   admits   in   Christian 
societies  the  existence  of  persons  chosen  for  the  purpose  of  adminis- 
tering justice.     I  see  that  this  hypothesis  is  likewise  inadmissible. 
In   His  prayer  Christ  enjoins  all  men,  without  any  exception,  to 
ibrgive,  as  they  hope  to  be  forgiven.     We  find  the  same  precept 
repeated  many  times.     Each  man  must  forgive  his  brother  when  he 
prays,  <md  before  bringing  his  gift.     Then  how  can  a  man  judge  and 
condemn  another  when,  according  to  the  faith  he  professes,  he  is 
f)ound  to  forgive  ?    Thus  I  see  that,  according  to  the  doctrine  of 
Christ,  a  judge  who   condemns    his   fellow-creature  to  death  is  no 
Christian.'     The  argument  and  conclusion  are  pertinent,  only  Count 
Tolstoi   has   overlooked  the  fact   that   the   I^ord's   prayer   was   for 
disciples-     Matthew  gives  it  as  part  of  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount, 

*   ""What  I  lielieve."     Translated  from  tlie  Kussian.     Tage  26.     Elliot  Stock, 
62,  Paternoster  liow. 


170  THE    KING    AND    THE    KINGDOM:  [i'akt  ii. 

11  Lukpi  and  Luke  iutroduces  it  as  follows  :  'And  it  came  to  pass,  as  he  wns 
praying  in  a  certain  place,  that  when  he  ceased,  one  of  his  disciples 
said  unto  him,  Lord,  teach  us  to  praj,  even  as  John  also  taught  his 
disciples.'  In  dealing  with  this  difficult  question,  it  is  important 
not  to  start  with  a  ftilse  assumption.     Nevertheless  Tolstoi's  book 

Pa-er/'  supplies  much  food  for  thought.  He  says:  'Each  of  us  gives  the 
doctrine  of  Christ  an  interpretation  of  his  own,  but  it  is  never  the 
direct  and  simple  one  which  flows  out  of  his  words.  We  have 
grounded  the  conduct  of  our  lives  on  a  principle  which  He  rejects  ; 
and  we  do  not  choose  to  understand  His  teaching  in  its  simple  and 
direct  sense.  Those  who  call  themselves  "  believers  "  believe  that 
Cihrist-God,  the  second  person  of  the  Trinity,  made  Himself  man 
in  order  to  set  us  an  example  how  to  live,  and  they  strictly  fulfil  the 
most  complicated  duties,  such  as  preparing  for  the  sacraments,  build- 
ing churches,  sending  out  missionaries,  naming  pastors  for  parochial 
administration,  etc.  :  they  ibrget  only  one  trifling  circumstance — to 
„  40  do  as  He  tells  them.'  Again:  'Christ  says  that  the  law  of  resist- 
ance by  violence,  which  you  have  made  the  basis  of  your  lives,  is 
unnatural  and  wrong  ;  and  He  gives  us  instead  the  law  of  non- 
resistance,  which,  He  tells  us,  can  alone  deliver  us  from  evil.  He 
says  :  "  You  think  to  eradicate  evil  by  your  human  laws  of  violence  ; 
they  only  increase  it.  During  thousands  and  thousands  of  years  you 
have  tried  to  annihilate  evil  by  evil,  and  you  have  not  annihilated  it  ; 
you  have  but  increased  it.  Follow  the  teaching  I  give  you  by  word 
and  deed,  and  you  will  prove  its  practical  power."  Not  only  does 
He  speaks  thus,  but  He  remains  true  to  His  own  doctrine  not  to 
resist  evil  in  His  life  and  in  His  death.  Believers  take  all  this  in 
with  their  ears,  hear  it  read  in  chui"ches,  calling  it  the  Word  of  God. 
They  call  Him  G  od,  and  then  they  say,  "  His  doctrine  is  sublime, 
but  the  organization  of  our  lives  renders  its  observance  impossible  :  it 
would  change  the  whole  course  of  our  lives,  to  which  we  are  sO' 
used  and  with  which  we  are  so  satisfied.  Therefore,  we  believe  in 
His  doctrine,  only  as  an  ideal  which  man  must  strive  after — an  ideal 
^\■hich  is  to  be  obtained  by  prayer,  by  believing  in  the  sacraments, 
in  redempton,  and  in  the  resurrection  of  the  dead." ' 

Everything  which  Jesus  commanded  his  'disciples,'  they  were 
bound  to  obey.  At  the  same  time,  counsels  given  to  them  may  be- 
followed,  more  or  less,  by  others  also.     Of  his  disciples  Jesus  said  :■ 

iTjoiniir,    'They  are  not  of  the  world,  even  as  I  am  not  of  the  world.'     'I 

,.     ii    have  given  them  thy  word  :  and  the  world  hated  them,  because  they 

are  not  of  the  world,  even  as  I  am  not  of  the  world.'     The  selection 

of  disciples  out  of  the  world  did  not  imply  the  condemnation  of  other 

H.T.im  ir  men,  but  the  contrary  :  '  For  God  sent  not  the  Son  into  the  world  to 
judge  the  world,  but  that  the  world  should  be  saved  through  him.'' 
And  his  plan  of  saving  men  was  through  the  disciples,  to  whom  he 

r.  Mat.  in.  u  said  :  '  Ye  are  the  salt  of  the  earth  ...  Ye  are  the  hght  of  the 
world.'  The  disciples  of  Jesus  were  as  much  out  of,  apart  from  the 
world,  as  afterwards  were  anchorites  of  the  desert,  monks  and  nuns, 
as  much  a  class  by  themselves,  only  with  very  difl'erent  duties  laid 
upon  them  than  those  of  making  iH'ayers,  chanting  hymns,  readings- 
of  Scripture,  and  frequent  communion,  coupled  with  a  woi'ship  more 
or  less  idolatrous  of  the  sacramental  bread  and  wine.  All  baptised 
Christians  arc  no  more  '  disciples '  of  Jesus,  in  the  proper  sense  of  the- 


I'AKT  II.]        A    STUDY    OF   THE   FOUR    GOSFFLS.  171 

word,  tlian  they  are  monks  or  nuns.  The  note  of  Christian  oblitja- 
tion  has  been  pitched  too  hi<i:h  for  ordinary  men  and  women.  The 
ideal  Jesus  set  before  the  world  Avas  a  real  and  visible  one  :  a  l)ody 
of  men  living-  on  earth  accordini;  to  his  own  heavenly  maxims.  The 
Church  of  En<>-hind  has,  instead  of  holding  forth  that  reality,  assumed 
that  all,  without  excejjtion,  are  called  to  lead  the  ideal  life.  Jesus 
warned  all  not  to  profess  discipleship  who  were  not  resolutely  deter- 
mined to  take  up  his  cross  and  follow  him:  but  over  every  baptised 
infant  the  minister  utters  the  words  :  '  We  receive  this  child  into  the 
conoTcgation  of  Christ's  flock:'  that  should  have  been  enough,  but 
he  must  add  :  'and  do  sign  him  with  the  sign  of  the  Cross,  in  token 
that  hereafter  he  shall  not  be  ashamed  to  fight  under  his  banner, 
against  sin,  the  Avorld,and  the  devil ;  and  to  continue  Ciu'ist's  faithful 
soldier  and  servant  xinto  Itis  life's  end.'  Brave  words  tliese  :  but 
nothing  more  !  In  how  many  cases  must  they  be,  if  sober  truth  be 
spoken,  a  solemn  farce  !  The  child,  perchance,  grows  up  in  the  slums, 
picks  up  the  language  of  the  gutter  ;  until  the  last  few  years  it  might 
have  been  left  without  the  merest  rudimentary  intellectual  teaching  ; 
even  at  the  best,  it  will  lead  only  an  average,  common-place  life, 
labouring  perforce  for  the  meat  which  perisheth,  caring  and  knowing 
nothing  about  Christ's  cross,  or  any  soldiership  under  his  banner. 
And  most  of  us,  except  the  comparatively  few  who  come  within  the 
charmed  circle  of  sacerdotal  influence,  make  but  feeble  attempts  and 
faint  profession  of  active  service  in  the  cause  of  Jesus.  It  cannot  be 
right  to  apply  indiscriminately,  to  every  infant,  words  of  momentous 
import  such  as  would  suit  the  consecration  of  a  Bishop.  Precisely 
the  opposite  plan  was  adopted  by  Jesus.  Not  only  did  he  restrict  the 
call  to  discipleship,  but  he  was  ever  careful  not  to  impose  on  the 
nudtitudes  any  doctrines  which  might  be  above  their  capacities.  He 
spoke  constantly  to  them  in  similes.  'With  many  such  parables  4  Mark  0:3, 34 
spake  he  the  word  unto  them,  as  they  were  able  to  hear  it :  and  with- 
out a  parable  spake  he  not  unto  them  :  but  privately  to  his  own  dis- 
ciples he  expounded  all  things.'  And  when  the  disciples  asked  the 
reason  for  his  reticence  towards  others,  he  explained  that  it  was  not 
given  to  the  multitudes  to  comprehend  the  mysteries  of  the  kingdom 
of  heaven,  their  vision,  hearing,  and  understanding  being  imperfect. 
'And  the  disciples  came,  and  said  unto  him,  AVhy  speakest  thou  unto  1:3  yi-.a.  10. 
them  in  parables  ?     And  he  answered  and  said  unto  them,  Unto  you  ''■  '■* 

it  is  given  to  know  the  mysteries  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  but  to 
them  it  is  not  given  ,  .  Thei-efore  speak  I  to  them  in  parables  ; 
because  seeing  they  see  not,  and  hearing  they  hear  not,  neither  do 
they  understand.'  Why  should  we  be  afraid  of  a  principle  thus 
sanctioned  by  Jesus  ?  If  discipleship,  involving  implicit,  unreserved 
obedience,  was  not  laid  l)y  him  upon  all  who  heard  hiuj  preach  the 
gospel,  how  much  less  can  such  an  obligation  be  insisted  on  univer- 
sally now  ?  AYe  profess  too  much  ;  and  having  done  so,  we  minimise 
and  explain  away  certain  plain  directions  of  Jesus,  the  simple  truth 
being  that  they  are  too  high  for  us,  that  we  do  not  choose  to  adopt 
them.  It  were  better  to  say  so  boldly :  to  confess  ourselves  '  believers  ' 
l)ut  not  'disciples.'  '  Resist  not  him  that  is  evil:  but  whosoever  :.  :iiai.  :;!>.  40 
smiteth  thee  on  thy  right  cheek,  turn  to  him  the  other  also.  And  if 
any  man  would  go  to  law  with  thee,  and  take  away  thy  coat,  let  him 
have  thv  cloke  also.'     Did  the  apostle  Paul  hold  it  obligatory  upon 


172  THE    KING    AND    THE    KINGDOM:  [part  ii. 

all  believers  to  assert  no  right  b}'  legal  means  ?  No :  on  the  con- 
trary, he  urged  that  the  'assembly'  itself  should  constitute  a  legal 
tribunal,  to  whose  decisions  believers  should  bow,  rather  than  resort 

i.o.r.  1     to  adjudication  by  the  '  unrighteous.'     '  Dare  any  of  you,  having  a 

matter  against  his  neighbour,  go  to  law  before  the  unrighteous,  and 

■2     not  before  the  saints  ?  .  .  Are  ye  unworthy  to  judge  the  smallest 

„  .j  matters  ?  ,  .  Is  it  so,  that  there  cannot  he  found  among  you  one  wise 
man,  who  shall  be  able  to  decide  between  his  brethren,  but  brother 
goeth  to  law  with  brother,  and  that  before  unbelievers  ?  '  That  sug- 
gestion of  the  a])ostle  was  in  conformity  with  the  plan  laid  down  by 
Jesus  for  the  submission  of  all  trespasses  and  faults  to  the  judgment 
of  the  assembly.  But  Paul  urged  at  the  same  time  that  there  was  a 
higher  standard  lost  sight  of  by  them  in  thus  resorting  to  lawsuits  in 

»:  7  any  shape.  '  Nay,  already  it  is  altogether  a  defect  in  you  (or,  a  loss 
to  you),  that  ye  have  lawsuits  one  with  another.  Why  not  rather 
take  wrong  ?  why  not  rather  be  defrauded  ?  '  That  would  be  a  fol- 
lowing out  of  Christ's  counsel  of  perlectiou,  thereby  making  them- 
selves in  that  respect  his  disciples  indeed.  What  shall  be  said  then 
about  war  and  bloodshed  ?  Is  not  the  profession  of  a  soldier  diame- 
trically opposed  to  the  teaching  of  Jesus  ?  John  did  not  refuse 
baptism  to  soldiers  on  service,  but  surely  they  could  ne'S'er  l)e  called 
his  'disciples,'  much  less  'disciples'  of  Jesus.     And  yet  we  read  of 

A'ls -2  Cornelius,  a  centurion  of  the  Italian  cohort,  ' a  devout  man,  and  one 
that  feared  Cod  with  all  his  house,  who  gave  much  alms  to  the 
peojjle,  and  prayed  to  (!od  alway.'  He  was  assured  by  an  angel  of 
the  approval  of  Cod,  and  was  baptised  into  the  faith  of  Jesus:  yet 
without  relinquishing  his  trade  of  arms,  he  could  never  presume  to 
call  himself  a  '  disciple '  of  Jesus,  being  simply  a  believer  in  him, 
saved  indeed  through  him,  but  not  wholly  conformed  to  his  life  and 
doctrine,  a  servant  still  of  the  Iloman  Emperor,  and  not  of  him  who 

Milt.  ry2  said,  '  Put  up  again  thy  sword  into  its  place  :  for  all  they  that  take 
the  sword  shall  perish  with  the  sword.'  In  modern  phraseology,  we 
might  say  he  was  a  Christian  although  not  a  disciple  ;  but  we  I'cad 

Arts  Hi  that '  the  Dif^ciPLES  were  called  Christians  first  in  Antioch,'  doubtless 
from  their  strict  adherence  to  the  tenets  of  Jesus,  which  marked  them 
out  as  his  followers,  their  new  principles  of  action  and  mode  of  life 
giving  rise  to  a  new  title.  Count  Tolstoi  does  not  use  the  term 
'  Christians '  in  its  primitive  sense  ;  but  if  it  be  restricted  to  *  dis- 
ciples,' his  argument  is  logical,  and  his  conclusions,  however  startling, 
beyond  dispute. 

The  parable  which  Jesus  delivered  to  his  disciples  is  as  follows, — 
i.nko  1  '  There  was  a  certain  rich  man,  which  had  a  steward  ;  and  the  same 
was  accused  unto  him  that  he  was  wasting  his  goods.'  The  master 
called  his  servant,  challenged  him  to  refute  the  accusation  if  he  could, 
decided  that  he  was  unfit  to  retain  his  office,  and  required  him  to 
„  J  make  up  his  accounts.  'And  he  called  him,  and  said  unto  him.  What 
is  this  that  I  hear  of  thee  ?  render  the  account  of  thy  stewardshij) ; 
for  thou  canst  be  no  longer  steward.'  The  loss  of  his  office  gave 
occasion  for  serious  reflection  :  not  by  way  of  self-accusation  or  regret 
for  any  past  misdoings,  but  as  to  the  best  method  of  '  feathering  his 
nest '  for  the  future.  If  not  unfit,  he  was  certainly  indisposed  for 
manual  labour,  and  he  scorned  the  idea  of  asking  loans  or  favours. 


VAKT  II.]         .4    HTUDY    OF    THE    FOUR    GOSPELS.  173 

'And  tlie  steward  said  witliin  himself,  "What  shall  I  do,  seeing  that  "'i'"'^f''' 
iny  lord  taketh  away  the  stewardship  from  me  ?     I  have  not  strength 
to  dig  ;  to  beg  I  am  ashamed.'     The  '  I  cannot '  of  the  Anthorised 
Yersion  is  replaced  by  '  I  have  not  strength  to  ;'  other  translators  do 
not  go  so  far:  Young  and  Tischendorf  have  simply  *  I  am  not  able,' 
and  Luther,  'graben  mag  ich  nicht,'  'dig  I  may  not.'     Being  in  this 
dilemma,  he  set  his  wits  to  work,  and  devised  a  sclieme  which  was  as 
clever  and  far-sighted  as  it  was  unprincipled  and  immoral.     '  I  am      .,    4 
resoh'ed  what  to  do,  that.  \\  hen  I  am  put  out  of  the  stewardship, 
they  may  receive  me  into  their  houses.'     lie  could  yet  manage,  at  his 
master's  cost,  to  ingratiate  himself  with  the  tenants  or  debtors  of  the 
estate.     He   knew   human    nature  well  enough   to  rely  upon  their 
covetousness  and  self-interest,  without  nnicli  risk  of  being  foiled  l)y 
any  conscientious  scruples  on  their  part.     I>y  virtue  of  his  office  he 
would  naturally  have  givat  power  over  these  men,  for  it  rested  with 
him  to  drive  a  hard  bargain  or  the  reverse,  to  press  for  payment  or 
to  do  them  a  good  turn.     'J'his  latter  Avas  his  cue  now.     'And  calling      »     •'» 
to  him  each  one  of  his  lord's  debtors,  he  said  to  the  first,  How  much 
owest  thou  unto  my  lord?'     Not  a  pleasant  question  at  any  time, 
and  one  likely  to  awaken  anxiety  if  it  were  known  that  the  steward 
was  about  to  close  his  accounts.     'And  he  said,  A  hundred  measures      ,,    c 
(Gr.  baths)  of  oil.'     Tischendorf  renders,  'pipes  of  oil,'  and  Samuel 
Sharpe  inserts,  '  (or  seven  hundred  gallons).'    It  was  a  large  quantity: 
too  much  by  half,  said  this  generous  steward.    Here  is  your  account ; 
sit  down  at  once,  and  alter  it  yourself  by  that  amount.    'And  he  said      »     '• 
unto  him.  Take  thy  bond  ((Jr.  writings),  and  sit  down  quickly  and 
write  fifty.'     It  was  all  regular  and  legal  enough  to  pass  muster  :  the 
steward  was  yet  in  office,  authorised  to  act,  master  of  the  situation. 
If  he  pronounced  the  sum  excessive,  and  suggested  the  amendment 
<tf  the  document,  it  was  not  for  the  debtor  to  say  him  nay.     '  Then      .-     " 
said  he  to  another,  And  how  much  owest  thou?'     The  word  'and' 
before  '  how '  sufficiently  indicates  either  that  all  the  debtors  w'ere 
assembled  together,  or  at  least  that  no  concealment  was  attempted. 
I^ach  would  hope  to  be  treated  as  his  neighbour  had  been,  and  thence- 
forth they  would  have  common  cause  to  shield  and  justify  each  other, 
and  maintain,  if  questioned,  the  spontaneousuess  and  validity  of  the 
transaction.     The  second  w'as  dealt  with  in  the  same  liberal  manner 
as  the  first.     'And  he  said,  A  hundred  measures  ((ir.  cors)  of  wheat.      ,.     ~ 
He  said  unto  him,  Take  thy  bond  (Gr.  writings),  and  write  fourscore.' 
Young  renders  'homers,'  Tischendorf  'quarters;'    Sharpe  has,  'a 
hundred  Cors  (or  seven  thousand  gallons).'     The  value  in  each  case 
was  considerable.     Yet  these  were  only  two  instances  out  of  many. 
Nothing  was  said  to  any  one  of  the  debtors  about  a  division  of  the 
spoil.    As  one  after  another  fell  into  the  trap  laid  l)y  the  wily  steward, 
liis  power  over  each  and  all  of  them  became  so  much  the  more.    Each 
knew  himself  to  be  implicated  with  others  in  a  transaction  which 
would  scarcely  bear  investigation,  and  which  it  would  be  best  for  all 
to  hush  up  for  ever.     He  had  made  himself  a  friend,  a  benefactor  to 
every  one  of  them.    He  could  claim  henceforth,  as  it  suited  him,  some 
I'cturn  at  their  hands.    He  having  freely  given  them  so  much  capital, 
might  justly  set  up  a  claim  to  so  much  interest.     He  had  put  them 
on  the  best  terms  with  himself,  and  would  take  care  to  give  them  the 
oj^portunity  of  reciprocating  his  good  offices.    Thenceforth  they  wculd 


174  THE    KING    AND    THE    KINGDOM:  [part  ii. 

undoubtedly,  one  and  all,  be  willing-  to  receive  him  into  their  houses  ; 
he  need  not  be  a  permanent  guest  anywhere,  having  free  choice  of  all. 
The  plan,  however  unprincipled,  was  cleverly  conceived  and  skil- 
fully carried  out.  80  large  a  deduction  from  the  revenue  of  the 
estate  was  necessarily  detected,  but  the  owner  seems  to  have  felt 
himself  helpless  either  to  remedy  or  resent  the  loss,  and  is  repre- 
sented as  simply  expressing  his  admiration  at  the  consummate  auda- 
city, ability  and  foresight  of  the  steward.  '  And  his  lord  commended 
the  unrighteous  steward  (Gr.  the  steward  of  unrighteousness)  because 
he  had  done  wisely.'  There  is  no  approval  of  the  man's  character, 
which  is  sufficiently  condemned  by  the  title  given  him,  '  the  steward 
of  unrighteousness.'  Dean  Alford  took  upon  himself  to  render  'the 
lord '  by  '  his  lord,'  and  observed :  '  The  A.  V.  ought  to  have  been 
thus  expressed,  and  not  the  lord,  and  there  would  have  been  no 
ambiguity.'  The  Revisers  have  made  the  alteration :  but  Tischen- 
dorf.  Young  and  Luther,  following  the  original,  render  '  the  lord.' 
Sharpe  throughout  the  parable  has  '  the  master,'  which  removes  all 
doubt.  It  is  well  to  be  clear  on  the  point,  although  the  next  sentence 
shows  that  Jesus  himself  endorsed  the  opinion  of  the  master. 

Commentators,  as  usual,  have  assumed  the  parable  to  contain 
hidden  meanings  not  brought  out  or  indicated  by  Jesus.  Accordingly 
their  interpretations  are  various  and  contradictory.  Alford  says  :  '  In 
the  interpretation,  the  rich  man  is  i]ie  Ahn.i<jhiy  Possessor  of  all 
iJiings.  This  is  the  only  lenable  view.  Meyer,  who  supposes  him  to  be 
mammon  (defending  it  by  the  consideration  that  dismissal  from  his 
service  is  equivalent  to  heing  received  into  everlasting  habitations, 
which  it  is  not),  is  involved  in  inextricable  difficulties  further  on, 
Olshausen's  view,  that  he  represents  the  Devil,  the  p-ince  of  this  world, 
Avill  be  found  equally  untenable.  Schleiermacher's,  that  the  Romans 
are  intended,  whose  stewards  the  Publicans  were,  and  that  the 
debtors  are  the  Jews,  hardly  needs  refuting  :  certainly  not  more 
refuting  than  any  consistent  exposition  will  of  itself  furnish.'  We 
arc  not  here  c(unpelled  to  choose  between  God  and  the  Devil.  Why 
should  expounders  of  the  parables  introduce  such  ideas,  which  are 
but  arbitrary  guesses  after  all,  and  which  keep  out  of  view  those 
human  lessons  which  Jesus  sought  to  inculcate.  This  parable  is  of 
so  peculiar  a  character  that  we  might  well  stand  in  doubt  as  to  the 
true  interpretation,  had  not  Jesus  himself  undertaken  to  guide  us. 
He  drew  seven  lessons  from  the  parable. 

1.  The  wise  and  thrifty  use  of  opportunities. 

2.  The  use  which  his  disciples  should  make  of  wealth. 

o.  The  inseparable  connection  between  character  and  conduct. 

4.  And  between  conduct  and  destiny. 

5.  And  between  responsibility  and  freedom. 

(j.  The  need  for  singleness  of  mind  and  purpose. 

7.  The  choice  between  discipleship  and  money-making. 

(1).  Here  is  the  foremost  lesson.  'For  the  sons  of  this  world  (or, 
age)  are  for  their  own  generation  wiser  than  the  sons  of  the  light.' 
Those  whose  aims  and  hopes  are  bounded  by  the  present  life,  display 
greater  prudence  in  regard  to  their  future  welfare  than  do  those  who 
are  enlightened  by  higher  principles  and  are  called  to  a  nobler 
destiny.  Instead  of  simply  drifting  on  towards  futurity,  bewailing 
what  is  past  and  dreading  what  is  to  come,  it  behoves  us  to  take 


PART  II.]        .4    STUDY    OF   THE    FOUR    OOSFFLS.  17o 

nc(!onnt  of  what  is  left  to  us  of  life  and  eiierp;y,  iiiifcicipating  tlie  fast 
approaching  day  when  our  present  stewardship  must  be  resigned,  and 
a  new  stage  of  l)eing  entered  upon. 

(2).  Jesus  urged  his  disciples  to  anticipate  and  prepare  for  that, 
by  rightly  using"  the  wealth  of  this  Avorld.  'And  I  say  unto  you,  k- i-uUo  n 
.Make  to  yourselves  friends  by  means  of  (Or.  out  of)  the  mammon  of 
unrighteousness;  that,  when  it  shall  fail,  they  may  receive  you  into 
the  eternal  tabernacles.'  Tischendorf  renders  '  mammon  of  un- 
righteousness'  as  'mammon  of  injustice.'  Wealth  is  so  unevenly 
and  unfairly  apportioned  among  niju  as  to  justify  the  appropriate- 
ness of  this  title.  The  Authorised  Version  has  'when  ye  fail,' 
which  is  changed  by  the  Revisers  and  Tischendorf  to  '  when  it  shall 
fail.'  The  Alexandrine  IMS.  stood  so  from  the  first,  and  it  is  the 
altered  reading  of  the  Vatican  jM8.  Young  renders  '  eternal '  as 
'  age-during.' 

This  application  of  the  parable  is  very  direct  and  peculiar.  Drop- 
ping all  thought  of  the  want  of  honest  principle  on  the  part  of  the 
steward,  Jesus  held  up  as  an  example  his  friendly  and  munificent 
spirit.  And  inasmuch  as  all  must  deal  with  money,  the  '  unrighteous 
mammon '  which  has  no  connection  with  moral  rectitude,  he  coun- 
selled his  disciples  to  turn  it  social  uses,  cementing  thereby  the  bonds 
of  mutual  friendship.  And  as  the  views  of  the  steward  reached 
beyond  his  term  of  office,  so  must  their  views  reach  beyond  the 
present  life.  As  his  emoluments  were  bound  to  cease,  so  must  their 
hold  on  earthly  possessions  ;  and  as  his  object  was  to  provide  for 
himself  a  home  for  the  future  among  friends,  so  they  sliould  look 
forward  to  a  welcome,  by  those  who  have  been  made  friends  here, 
into  a  far  more  enduring  home.  The  expression  '  age-during  taber- 
nacles'  sufficiently  indicates  the  unworldliness  of  the  exhortation. 
Jesus  brings  out  the  fact  of  a  continuity  of  existence,  the  friendships 
formed  in  this  life  being  perpetuated  in  the  next.  His  words  imply, 
moreover,  a  condition  of  existence  analogous  to  the  present,  under 
the  same  necessities  for  mutual  help  and  comfort,  the  lot  of  each 
individual  there  as  dependent  as  it  is  here  on  the  dispositions  and 
actions  of  his  fellows.  Our  relative  positions  may  be  reversed,  but 
the  grand  law  of  retribution  will  continue  to  work  through  human 
instrumentality.  Jesus  does  not  say,  Give,  and  (lod  will  recompense 
you  ;  but,  Make  to  yourselves  friends  l)y  giving,  and  they  will  repay 
you.  This  parable  will  not  bear  close  pressing — To  attempt  that, 
eads  to  its  distortion  in  one  direction  or  another.  All  thought  of 
the  rascality  of  the  steward  has  to  be  dropped  :  there  is  nothing 
imitable  in  that.  His  purely  selfish  motive  must  not  be  ours  ;  and 
yet  it  is  true  that  as  we  sow  in  social  matters,  so  we  shall  reap. 
Neither  can  it  be  imagined  that  benefactors  must  survive  the  friends 
they  have  made,  and  who  will  of  necessity  have  gone  before  and  be 
in  a  position  to  offer  helpful  ministrations  ;  nor  is  to  be  assumed 
that  the  poor  in  this  workl  will  be  transformed  into  the  rich  of  the 
next  :  nor  that  those  whose  motives  and  lives  have  been  highest  on 
earth  will  hereafter  need  the  help  of  those  they  befriended.  Nor 
must  the  fact  be  overlooked  that  the  parable  was  spoken  to  'disciples,' 
Avhuse  choice  of  following  Jesus  involved  the  relinquishment  of 
worldly  affairs,  hopes,  position, — to  the  '  little  flock  '  who  from  the 
first  had  been  exhorted,  '  Sell  that  ye  have,  and  give  alms  ;  make  for  12  Luke  33 


176  THE    KIAG    AND    TEE    KINGDOM:  [part  ii. 

yourselves  purses  which  wax  not  old,  a  treasure  in  the  heavens  that 
"faileth  not.  For  where  your  treasure  is,  there  will  your  heart  be  also.' 
To  apply  such  directions  to  all  alike  would  be  absurd  :  Christian 
society  cannot  be  founded  on  the  basis  of  all  giving  up  everything, 
and  Jesus  never  propounded  so  monstrous  and  mischievous  a 
doctrine.  If  maxims  intended  for  comparatively  few  are  sought  to 
be  made  of  universal  application,  the  only  result  must  be,  as  it  has 
been,  to  fritter  away  the  sense  of  the  wise  aud  necessary  counsels 
given  by  Jesus  to  his  disciples,  and  to  perpetuate  the  false  notion 
that  none  can  comply  literally  and  fully  with  his  commands.  He 
never  laid  upon  all  men's  shoulders  the  burden  of  discipleship ; 
and  we  wrong  his  spirit  and  pervert  his  words  by  mistaking  the 
former  and  explaining  away  the  latter.  It  behoves  every  Christian 
to  act  up  to  his  profession.  If  he  professes  himself  a  disciple,  let 
him  truly  and  completely  carry  out  every  instruction  given  to  dis- 
ciples; and  let  the  sober,  solemn  truth  bo  recognised,  that  a  'minister' 
of  Christ  and  a  '  disciple '  of  Christ  are  synonymous  terms.  As  it 
is,  in  this  matter  of  the  giving  away  of  property,  we  seem  to  think 
that  the  man  who  gives,  not  all  but  most,  comes  nearest  to  the  ideal 
of  a  Christian.  Such  a  conception  is  mean  and  paltry.  If  a  man 
gave  up  all  he  had,  but  not  himself  to  the  work  of  evangelisation,  he 
AYOuld  still  be  no  'disciple.'  Aye  !  and  the  thought  is  worth  our 
pondering,  whether  any  '  disciple '  of  Jesus  is  justified  in  holding 
pro]3crty,  seeing  he  must  live  for  heaven,  and  lay  up  his  only 
treasure  there  ?  Let  us  take  our  stand  on  lower  ground.  The 
cojnmand  has  not  been  addressed  to  us,  as  it  was  to  the  young  man 
who  wanted  to  be  ' perfect '  :  'Sell  that  thou  hast,  and  give  to  the 
poor,  and  thou  shalt  have  treasure  in  heaven  :  and  come,  follow  me.' 
Still,  the  spirit  of  discipleship  may  be  ours,  more  or  less,  as  we  are 
able  to  receive  it ;  and  inasmuch  as  the  parable  of  the  unjust  steward 
was  obviously  designed  to  elucidate  rather  principles  of  action 
than  any  particular  form  of  action,  we  may  lay  hold,  to  our  comfort 
and  profit,  on  the  truths  deducible  therefrom.  'Make  to  yourselves 
friends  .  .  .  that  they  may  receive  you  into  the  eternal  tabernacles.' 
The  words  of  Jesus  convey  a  charming  picture  of  the  life  to  come  : 
to  rejoin  those  we  have  known  and  loved  on  earth,  to  receive  from 
them  a  hearty  welcome,  to  enter  their  heavenly  homes,  to  renew, 
under  better  auspices,  all  friendly  intimacies,  and  share  in  common 
our  far  more  enduring  inheritance,  all  mutual  offices  of  tender  love 
aud  sweet  fellowship  still  existent  and  interchanged  :  the  hope  is 
more  than  all  we  could  desire,  and  the  reality  beyond  our  powers  of 
conception.  God  be  thanked  for  such  a  revelation  I  The  clay  and 
dross  of  earth  are  transmutable,  by  a  heavenly  alchemy,  into  the 
spirit  and  life  of  the  world  to  come  ;  our  earthly  homes  have  their 
antitypes  in  heaven.  Jesus  sets  before  us  the  duty,  not  of  promis- 
cuous almsgiving,  but  of  social  charities.  Our  best  and  truest  friends 
must  be  those  of  our  own  household  and  the  comparatively  few  who 
come  within  the  circle  of  our  personal  influence.  To  do  our  utmost, 
wisely  and  liberally,  for  all  about  us,  is  to  uncoil  a  chain  of  love 
Avhich  will  join  earth  and  heaven,  and  circle  round  eternity. 

(3).  The  third  deduction  drawn  by  Jesus  from  the  parable  is  in 
the  words  :  '  He  that  is  faithful  in  a  very  little  is  faithful  also  in 
much  :  and  he  that  is  uurighteo;;s  in  a  very  little  is  unrighteous  also 


PART  II.]         A    STUDY    OF    THE    FOUR    GOSPELH.  177 

in  much.'  The  steward's  ue<;-ligencc  of  oversight  wliicli  led  to  the 
simple  'wasting- '  of  his  muster's  goods,  Wiis  at  once,  under  the  pressure 
of  temptation,  replaced  by  a  deliberate  scheme  of  robbery.  Puncti- 
liousness with  respect  to  small  duties  is  a  good  augury  of  fidelity  in 
general,  and  the  rule  reversed  is  equally  true.  p]very  trust  is  a  test  of 
character,  and  the  qualities  displayed  in  one  condition  of  existence 
are  sure  to  act  under  all  circumstances. 

(4).  From  this  consideration  Jesus  drew  the  inference:  'If  therefore  lOLukeu 
ye  have  not  been  faithful  in  the  unrighteous  mammon,  who  will  com- 
mit to  your  trust  the  true  riches  ? '  Alford  notes  that  the  italicised 
word  '  riches '  is  'not  expressed  in  the  original,'  Tischendorf  renders : 
'  who  will  commit  to  your  trust  the  true  good  ? '  Young's  rendering 
is  no  douljt  preferable  :  '  If,  then,  in  the  unrighteous  riches  ye  Avere 
not  faithful — the  true  who  will  entrust  to.you?'  The  contrast  is 
between  'true'  and  '  unrighteous,' both  words  referring  to  'riches.' 
The  words  are  used  in  the  same  way  elsewhere  :  '  The  same  is  true,  7. John  is 
and  no  unrighteousness  is  in  him.'  There  is  a  form  of  wealth  to 
which  no  injustice  clings,  which  is  attainable  only  in  conjunction 
with  moral  rectitude,  and  the  distribution  of  which  is  impartial  and 
unselfish.  Jesus  does  not  further  specify  its  nature  ;  but  probably 
we  shall  not  err  in  interpreting  it  to  mean  that  miraculous  ])0wer 
over  diseases  and  over  hostile  spirits  which  was  constantly  exhibited 
by  Jesus,  and  which  he  imparted,  as  they  were  able  to  receive  it,  to 
his  disciples,  making  it  an  essential  preliminary  that  before  going 
forth  to  exercise  it,  they  should  strip  themselves  of  all  money  and 
everything  superfluous,  and  determine  to  take  no  recompense  beyond 
food  and  lodging.  Suppose  one  of  those  seventy  whom  Jesus  thus 
sent  forth,  had  filled  his  purse,  and  tried  to  sell  his  miraculous  gifts  : 
where  would  have  been  the  faith  on  which  alone  his  power  depended  ? 
'  Thy  silver  perish  with  thee,'  said  Peter  to  Simon  the  sorcerer,  '  be-  s  Acts  20 
cause  thou  hast  thought  to  obtain  the  gift  of  God  with  money.' 
Spiritual  gifts  and  worldly  wealth  lie  very  far  apart :  they  are,  in 
truth,  inimical.  So  Jesus  taught,  and  on  that  principle  his  disciples 
acted.  But  the  right  use  of  wealth  is  a  test  of  character.  The  first 
followers  of  Jesus  were  called  upon  to  give  it  up,  and  gave  it  np 
altogether,  that  they  might  secure  to  themselves  a  more  enduring 
treasure.  The  proper  spending  of  money  requires  soundness  of  judg- 
ment, liberality  of  mind,  unselfishness  of  motive.  The  getting  and 
the  keeping  of  it  are  hard  enough,  and  at  that  point  the  efforts  of 
many  terminate  :  the  method  and  habit  of  disbursing  it  wisely  and 
freely  are  harder  still.  Self-denial  may  be  coupled  Avith  rapacity, 
parsimony  Avith  covetousness,  profusion  Avith  recklessness  and  self- 
indulgence.  If  our  minds  and  hearts  lead  us  astray  in  dealing  Avith 
the  current  coin  of  the  world,  Avhicli  not  only  symbolises  but  actually 
embodies  effort,  power,  influence,  hoAV  can  Ave  be  fit  for  higher  gifts, 
for  a  Avider  and  more  unfettered  sphere  of  action,  for  the  'true  riches' 
Avhich  the  Son  of  man  shall  give  unto  us  ? 

(5.)  Jesus  dwelt  on  this  idea,  adding  :  '  And  if  ye  have  not  been  10  luUc  12 
faithful  in  that  Avhich  is  another's,  Avho  will  give  you  that  Avhich  is 
your  own  ? '  The  Eevisers  note  that  '  some  ancient  authorities  read 
our  own.''  That  is  not  the  reading  of  the  three  oldest  MSS.  It  is 
incongruous,  and  may  be  dismissed  as  erroneous.  The  words  of  Jesus 
import  that  our  earthly  duties  constitute  a  training  for  a  higher  stage 


178  ■  THE    KIXG    AND    THE    KINGDOM:  [part  ii. 

of  existence.  The  nnfaitlifnlness  of  the  steward  deprived  him  of  all 
opportunity  of  rising;  in  the  world,  and  kept  him  in  a  state  of  utter 
dependence  upon  others.  The  due  fulfihnent  of  one  trust  certifies 
our  fitness  for  another  ;  and  to  fall  short  of  our  duty  in  any  assigned 
responsibility,  must  prevent  our  advancement  to  a  position  involving 
unfettered  powers  of  action.  The  connection  here  indicated  by  Jesus 
between  temporal  and  spiritual  gifts  deserves  to  be  more  deeply  pon- 
dered thau  it  is.  The  fact  gives  significaiice  and  dignity  alike  to  the 
lowest  and  the  highest  earthly  occupations.  This  world  is  our  school : 
labour  our  taskmaster  ;  our  home  lies  elsewhere,  and  our  life  to  come 
is  hid  Avith  Christ  in  God.  The  earning  of  a  livelihood,  the  acquire- 
ment, employment,  and  distribution  of  wealth,  call  forth  the  exercise 
of  moral  qualities,  and  serve  as  stepping-stones  to  a  higher  platform 
of  thought  and  energy.  All  the  concerns  of  this  life,  rightly  viewed 
and  utilised,  tend  heavenwards.  In  proportion  to  our  sense  of  re- 
sponsibility, and  our  earnest  devotion  to  the  duties  of  this  life,  will 
be  our  fitness  for  heavenly  and  spiritual  things,  when  the  time  shall 
come  for  us  to  enter  upon  them. 

(6).  From  the  steward's  breach  of  trust  in  preferring  the  interest 
of  his  friends  to  that  of  his  master,  Jesus  drew  another  lesson.  '  JSJ'o 
servant  (Gr.  household-servant)  can  serve  two  masters  :  for  either  he 
will  hate  the  one,  and  love  the  other ;  or  else  he  will  hold  to  one,  and 
despise  the  other.'  The  maxim  must  not  be  misread,  as  though  it 
were  impossible  to  undertake  the  management  of  conflicting  interests. 
It  is  a  matter  of  daily  experience  that  upright  men  can  and  do  act 
independently  of  favour  or  self-interest.  The  reference  is  to  a  '  house- 
hold-servant,' the  rendering  of  Young  and  Tischendorf  being  'do- 
mestic' There  must  not  be  two  masters  in  one  house  ;  a  servant 
must  not  owe  a  divided  allegiance.  Not  only  will  the  two  controlling 
powers  clash,  but  the  servant  must  needs  incline  to  the  one  or  the 
other.  Professing  equal  devotion  to  both,  either  lie  will  obey  one 
willingly  and  the  other  unwillingly,  or  deliberately  refuse  obedience 
to  one  of  the  two.  A  double  rule  may  be  so  harmonised  as  to  become 
practically  one  mastership  ;  but  Jesus  had  in  mind  two  opposing 
powers,  putting  forth  diverse  claims  impossible  to  reconcile,  so  utterly 
different  in  character  and  purpose,  that  if  love  be  felt  for  the  one, 
antipathy  must  exist  to  the  other,  and  submission  to  one  involve  dis- 
obedience to  the  other. 

(7).  This  parable  lies  within  the  previous  parable,  and  is  applied 
by  Jesus  in  the  same  direction  :  '  Ye  cannot  serve  God  and  mammon,' 
The  choice  lay  between  discipleship  and  money-making.  Jesus  does 
not  hint  at  anything  wrong  or  degrading  in  the  latter.  Young 
simply  renders  'mammon'  by  the  word  'riches.'  The  entire  time, 
energy,  and  devotion  of  a  domestic  are  claimed  by  his  master  :  the 
service  of  God  to  which  Jesus  here  alludes  is  of  that  kind.  The  man 
who  had  professed  discipleship  was  not  free  for  the  ordinary  business 
of  the  world.  The  disciples,  to  whom  the  parable  was  addressed,  must 
disentangle  themselves  from  their  former  avocations  :  they  could  not 
attend  as  before,  and  as  other  men,  to  the  concerns  of  this  life  ;  they 
professed  to  have  accepted  the  call  of  Jesus,  and  must  devote  them- 
selves unreservedly  to  his  cause.  To  regard  this  statement  of  Jesus 
as  applicable  to  every  baptised  Christian  is  to  mistake  its  bearing,  to 
involve  our  ideas  of  duty  in  inextricable  confusion,  and  to  encourage 


PART  II.]         A    STUDY    OF    THE    FOUR    CWSPELS.  179 

that  mild,  uncoiiscions  hypocrisy  wliicli  grows  out  of  lialf  truths  and 
wrong  notions.  The  majority  of  mankind  througliout  their  lives  do, 
perforce  or  willingly, 'serve  riches.'  It  is  incumbent  upon  most  to 
labour  for  daily  bread,  for  family  requirements,  for  the  education  and 
advancement  of  children,  for  the  accumulation  before  our  death  of 
property  for  those  we  love  and  must  leave  behind.  It  wei'C  absurd 
to  argue  against  this  as  being  contrary  to  the  law  of  Christ :  it  is  the 
teaching  of  nature  ;  it  is  the  decree  of  Providence  ;  it  is  an  instinct 
of  humanity  to  make  the  best  of  this  earthly  life  which  (iod  has  given 
us.  The  manufacturer  who  invests  his  capital  in  buildings  and 
machinery,  the  merchant  who  ventures  on  the  importation  or  expor- 
tation of  goods,  the  agent  who  undertakes  their  disposal,  the  Ijanker 
wlio  provides  the  requisite  coin  and  credit,  the  tradesman  who  dis- 
tributes according  to  the  requirements  of  the  community :  all  these 
are  engrossed,  six  days  out  of  seven,  in  the  w'ork  of  '  serving  riches.' 
Not  for  them  is  there  any  command  to  forsake  houses,  lands,  brethren, 
wife,  children,  for  Christ's  sake.  Let  us  face  this  question  honestly, 
and  clear  our  minds  of  cant  with  respect  to  it.  Away  with  the  folly 
of  imagining  ourselves  'disciples'  and  'followers'  of  Jesus,  when  we 
arc  not  such  in  reality,  and  have  no  intention  of  making  an  effort  to 
become  such.  The  teaching  and  exhortations  of  Jesus  must  be  ap- 
plied with  judgment.  They  deserve  an  amount  of  thought  and  study 
which  they  have  not  received.  Ministers  of  the  gospel  start  with  the 
idea  that  they  know  all  about  the  matter :  have  they  not  studied 
'  theology  ?  '  Yes  :  and  what  they  have  been  taught,  that  they  will 
teach.  The  errors  attaching  to  gospel  truth  are  propagated  the  more 
easily,  owing  to  the  fetters  which  our  well-meaning  forefathers  un- 
wisely im]X)sed  upon  freedom  of  opinion  in  religious  matters.  Under 
pains  and  penalties,  what  they  fondly  and  falsely  deemed  '  the  truth, 
the  whole  truth,  and  nothing  but  the  truth,'  has  been  taken  for 
granted,  upheld,  proclaimed  by  their  most  obedient  followers.  At  the 
same  time,  the  doctrine  of  Scriptural  inspiration  has  had  the  effect  of 
making  it  an  orthodox  opinion  that  every  syllable  of  the  Bible  comes 
direct  from  God,  and  hence  that  every  command  therein  is  his,  and 
that  all  his  commands  are  obligatory  upon  all.  Accepting  generali- 
sations such  as  these,  the  faculty  of  discrimination  has  been  well  nigh 
lost  for  want  of  exercise  ;  the  maxims  of  Jesus  have  l:)cen  taken  all 
together,  blended  into  a  hotchpot,  and  then  equally  apportioned  out 
to  the  whole  body  of  Christians,  share  and  share  alike,  or  so  much  to 
each  as  each  may  care  to  appropriate.  A  clergyman,  a  bishop,  an 
archbishop,  is  no  more  a  '  disciple,'  forsooth,  than  the  school  child 
Avho  is  able  to  learn  the  catechism  !  And  so  the  solemn  call  of  Jesus 
to  his  '  followers '  is  taken  to  have  no  special  application  to  our 
spiritual  pastors  ;  they,  although  claiming  to  be  representatives  of 
Christ,  are  as  free  to  make  a  purse  for  themselves  as  other  men  are  ! 
On  the  other  hand,  in  some  mysterious  way  apart  from  the  ordinary 
process  of  reasoning,  the  commands  not  to  serve  riches,  not  to  lay  up 
treasure  upon  the  earth,  to  forsake  all  for  Christ's  sake,  to  take  up  his 
cross  and  follow  him,  never  to  return  a  blow,  never  to  bring  an 
action  at  law,  are  held  to  be  within  the  pale  of  ordinary  Christian 
duties,  incumbent  upon  all  alike,  either  capable  of  fulfilment  gene- 
rally, or  not  capable  of  fulfilment  at  all !  What  a  farce  is  this  ! 
How  can  we  ever  learn  the  mind  of  Christ,  whilst  such  confusion 

X  2 


180  THE   KING    AND    THE   KINGDOM:  [part  ii. 

of  thought  and  prevarication  of  judgment  remain  unchecked,  unre- 
proYod,  undetected  ? 

The  remarks  of  Jesus  to  his  disciples  were  listened  to  by  the 
Pharisees.  They  were  a  money-loving  class,  and  openly  expressed 
ioLukfi4  their  contempt  for  such  teaching.  'And  the  Pharisees,  who  were 
lovers  of  money,  heard  all  these  things  ;  and  they  scoffed  at  him.' 
Jesus  solemnly  reproved  their  unjust  levity.  Nothing  easier  than  to 
mock  at  any  earnest  teacher,  to  turn  the  laugh  against  him,  gaining- 
1.-.  applause  themselves  whilst  bringing  him  into  contempt.  '  And  he 
said  unto  them,  Ye  are  they  that  justify  yourselves  in  the  sight  of 
men.'  But  their  conduct  and  their  principles  were  subject  to  Divine 
scrutiny,  and  that  which  was  highly  esteemed  by  men  Avas  hateful 

„  15  to  Grod.  '  But  God  knoweth  your  hearts  :  for  that  which  is  exalted 
among  men  is  an  abomination  in  the  sight  of  God,'  Jesus  specified 
two  conspicuous  instances  of  repugnance  to  the  will  of  God  :  1.  The 
persistent  opposition  to  the  introduction  of  the  gospel.  2.  The 
operation  of  the  law  of  divorce. 

(1).  The  time  had  come  for  the  introduction  of  a  higher  system  of 
morality,  based  on  a  new  religious  teaching.     John  the  Baptist  had 

„  iG  come  as  the  harbinger  of  that  better  state  of  things.  '  The  law  and 
the  propliets  were  until  John  :  from  that  time  the  gospel  of  the 
kingdom  of  God  is  preached.'  In  the  Authorised  Yersion  the  words 
'  the  gospel  of  '  are  omitted.  Tischendorf  agrees  with  the  Revised 
Yersion  ;  Luther  rendered  :  '  das  Reich  Gottes  durchs  Evangelium 
geprediget '  :  Young's  version  stands  :  '  since  then  the  reign  of  God 
is  proclaimed  as  good  news.'  The  verb  in  the  original,  euangelizo, 
signifies  to  preach  or  announce  good  news.  Yet  no  free  acceptance 
of  the  proffered  boon  was  aUowed  to  men  :  whoever  wished  to  enter 

..  k;  the  kiugdom  of  God  had  to  force  his  way  through  obstacles  :  '  and 
every  man  entereth  violently  into  it.'  The  Authorised  Yersion  has  : 
'  and  every  man  presseth  into  it '  ;  Y'oung  adopted  that  wording,  but 
Tischendorf  strengthened  the  expression  as  the  Revisers  have  done  : 
'  and  every  one  enters  into  it  with  violence '  ;  Luther  has  :  '  und 
jedermann  dringet  mit  Gewalt  hinein,  'and  every  one  presses  in 
with  force.'  The  spirit  of  religious  intolerance  prevailed,  and  it  was 
diametrically  opposed  to  the  divine  purposes  designed  for  the  advance- 
ment of  humanity. 

(2).  Simultaneously  with  this  active  hostility  to  the  gospel,  there 
was  a  lack  of  regard  to  that  divine  law  which  is  as  immutable  and 
17  irrefragable  as  the  universe  itself.  '  But  it  is  easier  for  heaven  and 
earth  to  pass  away  than  for  one  tittle  of  the  law  to  fall'  Against  the 
deliberate,  constant,  recognised  infraction  of  that  law  in  the  most 
sacred  relationship  of  life,  Jesus  emphatically  protested.  He  asserted 
that  the  Mosaic  law  of  divorce  was  an  infraction  of  the  divine  law — 
'  Thou  shalt  not  commit  adultery.'  The  argument  was  as  unwelcome 
as  it  was  bold  and  uncompromising.  It  involved  a  distinction 
between  one  part  of  the  canon  of  Scripture  and  another  part  of  it. 
IS  Moses  permitted  divorce  :  God  did  not.  '  Every  one  that  putteth 
away  his  wife,  and  marrieth  another,  committeth  adultery  :  and  he 
that  marrieth  one  that  is  put  away  from  a  husband  committeth 
adultery.'  This  declaration  of  Jesus  Avas  so  startlingly  at  variance 
with  the  recognised  law  and  practice  of  the  Jews,  that  the  Pharisees- 


PART  II.]         A    kiTUDY    OF    THE   FOUR    GOSFELS.  181 

some  time  afterwards  reverted  to  the  sul)ject,  luipini;-  eitlicr  to 
entangle  liini  into  an  argument  demonstrably  fiillacions,  or  to  charge 
him  with  bringing  the  law  of  Moses  into  disrepute.  Their  attack  on 
Jesus,  and  his  reply  thereto,  are  recorded  by  Mark  and  Matthew. 
'And  there  came  unto  him  Pharisees,  and  asked  him,  Ts  it  lawful  for  id  Mark  -j 
a  man  to  put  away  his  wife  ?  tempting  him.'  Matthew  represents 
something  more  to  have  been  added  to  the  question.  '  And  there  m  .Mat.  .•! 
came  unto  him  Pharisees,  tempting  him,  and  saying.  Is  it  lawful  for 
a  man.  to  put  away  his  wife  for  every  cause  ?  '  The  two  oldest  JMSS. 
omit  the  words  'for  a  man,'  which  the  Revisers  have  italicised. 
They  have  also  omitted  from  this  verse  the  words  '  unto  him,'  and 
from  the  next  verse  the  words  'unto  them,'  which  do  not  appear 
in  those  two  JISS.  They  have  also  omitted  '  the '  before  '  Pharisees,' 
inserting  the  note:  'Many  authorities,  some  ancient,  insert  the.'' 
Tischendorf  docs  so,  following  the  two  oldest  MSS.  Jesus,  in  reply, 
referred  his  questioners  to  the  account  they  were  accustomed  to  read 
of  the  creation  of  man.  '  And  he  answered  and  said,  Have  ye  not  „  -i 
read,  that  he  which  made  tliem  from  the  beginning  made  them  male 
and  female  '  ?  The  reference  is  to  the  first  chapter  of  Genesis  :  '  male  i  oen.  27 
and  female  created  he  them.'  Then  Jesus  added  :  '  and  said.  For  lo  irat.  r. 
this  cause  shall  a  man  leave  his  father  and  mother,  and  shall  cleave 
to  his  wife  ;  and  the  twain  shall  become  one  flesh.'  Alford  observes  : 
'  He  quotes  as  spoJioi  ly  the  Creaior  the  words  in  Gen.  ii.  2^,  whicli 
were  actually  said  by  Adam,'  and  :  '  He  cites  both  from  the  first  and 
second  chapters  of  Genesis  ;  and  in  immediate  connexion  ;  thus 
shewing  them  to  be  consecutive  parts  of  a  continuous  narrative, 
which,  from  their  different  diction,  and  apparent  repetition,  they 
have  sometimes  been  supposed  not  to  be.'  Both  these  statements  of 
Alford  arc  open  to  question.  Verses  24  and  25  of  the  second  chapter 
of  Genesis  appear  to  be  explanatory,  not  spoken  by  Adam.  Assum- 
ing the  words  in  verse  24  to  be  Adam's,  Alford  was  forced  to  qualify 
them  thus  :  '  They  must  therefore  be  understood  as  said  in  prophecy, 
by  divine  inspiration  which  indeed  the  terms  made  use  of  in  them 
would  require,  since  the  relations  alluded  to  by  those  terms  did  not 
yet  exist.  As  Augustine  says,  "  God  said  by  man  that  which  man 
foretold."  '  On  the  contrary,  the  fact  that  Jesus  attributed  the 
words  to  God  and  not  to  Adam,  should  be  taken  as  confirming  that 
interpretation  of  the  passage.  The  suggestion  about  '  prophecy  '  is 
really  made  to  get  o\qv  a  difficulty  otherwise  insuperable.  As  regards 
the  assumed  connection  and  continuity  between  the  first  and  second 
chapters  of  Genesis,  there  is  a  mystery  which  has  yet  to  be  solved. 
Not  only  is  there  a  difference  in  diction,  but  the  repetition  is  only 
'  apparent,'  as  stated  ])y  Alford.  The  first  chapter  starts  from  a  state 
of  chaos,  and  describes  the  gradual  uprising  and  ordering  of  all 
things,  including  grass,  herbs  and  fruit  trees,  flying  fowls,  beasts  of 
the  earth  and  cattle,  ending  with  the  creation  of  man,  male  and 
female  simultaneously,  after  which  there  was  a  cessation  of  creative 
power  during  a  period,  '  a  seventh  day,'  equal  in  duration  to  one  of 
the  '  days  '  preceding.  The  arbitrary  division  into  chapters  is  mis- 
leading, for  it  is  obvious  that  the  narrative  is  continuous  up  to  and 
including  verse  ;3  of  the  second  chapter.  Verse  4  is  the  opening  of 
a  separate  document,  beginning  with  the  words  :  '  These  are  the 
generations  of  the  heaven  and  of  the  earth,  when  they  were  created, 


182  THE   KING    AND    THE    KINGDOM:  [part  ii. 

in  the  day  '  (not  days)  '  when  the  Lord  (Jehovah)  God  made  earth 
and  heaven.'  Young  renders  :  'These  are  the  genealogies  of  the 
heavens  and  of  the  earth  in  their  Ijeing  framed,  in  tlie  day  of  the 
Lord  God's  making  the  earth  and  the  heavens.'  Samuel  Sharpe 
commences  verse  4  with  capitals,  '  to  mark  the  beginning  of  new 
matter,' as  follows  :  'This  is  the  birth-book  of  the  heavens  and 
of  the  earth  when  they  were  created,  in  the  day  that  Jehovah  God 
made  the  earth  and  the  heavens.'  There  is  now  neither  a  chaos  nor 
a  habitable  world  :  no  plant,  no  herb,  no  man  to  till  the  ground, — 
2  Gen.  5.  c,  uothiug  l)ut  a  misty  atmosphere  and  the  damp  earth.  '  And  no  plant 
of  the  field  was  yet  in  the  earth,  and  no  herb  of  the  field  had  yet 
sprung  up  :  for  the  Lord  God  had  not  caused  it  to  rain  upon  the 
earth,  and  there  was  not  a  man  to  till  the  ground  :  but  there  went 
up  a  mist  from  the  earth,  and  watered  the  whole  face  of  the  ground.' 
Then  man  was  formed  '  of  the  dust  of  the  ground,' — nothing  said  as 
in  the  former  account  about  his  being  'in  the  image  of  God,' — not 
male  and  female  as  before,  but  a  solitary  man.  Then  a  portion  of 
the  earth  was  redeemed  from  barrenness,  and  j^lanted  as  a  garden  for 
man's  dwelling-place.  Later  on,  the  woman  was  created  out  of  the 
man.  It  is  not  possible  to  combine  the  first  chapter  with  the  second, 
nor  to  make  the  latter  a  mere  supplement  to  the  ibrmer  ;  neither  can 
they  be  considered  as  different  accounts  of  the  same  creation  :  the 
discrepancies  between  the  two,  if  that  view  be  taken,  amount  to 
contradictions.  The  two  chapters  record  two  distinct  exercises  of 
creative  power,  separated  by  some  vast  interval  of  time,  God's 
sabbath  '  day '  intervening  between  them.  The  argument  of  Jesus 
fits  in  with  this  idea.  He  quotes  from  the  first  chapter,  to  show 
that  '  from  the  beginning '  God  created  '  male  and  female,'  a  living 
pair.  From  the  second  chajiter  he  quotes  the  statement  about  the 
unity  of  nature  in  the  man  and  the  woman,  so  that  throughout  all 
time  the  marriage  tie  must  take  precedence  of  every  other  relation- 
is  Mat.  c  ship,  being  essentially  indissoluble:  'So  that  they  are  no  more 
twain,  but  one  flesh.'  On  that,  Jesus  based  his  argument.  The 
constitution  of  human  nature,  the  ordinance  of  God,  decreed  the 
inseparableness  of  husband  and  wife.  Man's  wandering  desires  must 
„  (,  not  be  suffered  to  override  the  will  of  the  all-wise  Creator.  '  What 
therefore  (iod  hath  joined  together,  let  not  man  put  asunder.' 
10  Mark  (■.-(!  ]\Iaik's  I'eport  is  somewhat  more  succinct.  '  But  from  the  begin- 
ning of  the  creation,  Male  and  female  made  he  them.  For  this  cause 
shall  a  man  leave  his  father  and  mother,  and  shall  cleave  to  his  wife  ; 
and  the  twain  shall  become  one  flesh  ;  so  that  they  are  no  more  twain, 
but  one  flesh.  Y/hat  therefore  God  hath  joined  together,  let  not  man 
put  asunder.'  The  two  oldest  MSS.  omit,  'and  shall  cleave  to  his 
wife.'  Let  it  be  observed  that  the  opening  words  of  Luke,  '  Have 
ye  not  read,'  and  also  the  expression  '  and  said,'  are  omitted  by  ]Mark. 
This  discrepancy  shows  on  how  uncertain  a  foundation  Alford  rested 
his  argument  that  the  words  '  and  said  '  indicated  that  Jesus  quoted 
'as  spoken  by  the  Creator  the  words  which  were  actually  said  by 
Adam.'  "We  cannot  tell  whether  Mark's  or  Luke's  narrative  ap- 
proaches most  nearly  to  verbal  accuracy.  There  is  a  further  differ- 
ence between  the  two  narratives.  They  both  start  with  the  question 
put  by  the  Pharisees,  but  only  Mark  represents  Jesus  as  replying 
10  Mark  3     thereto  by  tlie  following  question  :  *  And  he  answered  and  said  imto 


PAux  H.]        .1    STUDY    OF    THE    FuUR    aOSPELS.  183 

them,  AVhat  did  Moses  command  you  ? '     To  this  tliey  rephcd  un- 
hesitating-ly.     '  And   they   said,  ]\Ioses   sniTered   to  write   a   bill   of  lo  Jiiuk  4 
divorcement,  and  to  put  lier  away.'     Jesus  characterised  that  per- 
mission as  a  policy  necessitated  by  obdurate  self-will,  opposed  to  the 
divine  will  and  to  the  true  interests  of  humanity.     '  But  Jesus  said       „     5 
unto  them.  For  your  hardness  of  heart  he  wrote  you  this  command- 
ment.'    Then  followed  the  observations  respecting-  the  original  insti- 
tution of  marriage,  and  the  recognition,  of  its  indissolubleness  from 
the  first.     Jesus  had  only  asked  about  the  command  of  Moses  for  tlie 
purpose  of  repudiating  it.     It  was  therefore  very  natural  to  enquire 
why  Closes  gave  a  command  more  honoured  in  the  breach  than  in  the 
observance.     '  They  say  unto  him,  Why  then  did  Moses  command  to  r."  Mat.  7 
give  a  bill  of  divorcement,  and  to  put  lier  away  ? '     If,  piecing  the 
two  narratives  together,  we  suppose  the  allusion  to  Moses  to  have 
occurred   twice,  Jesus  on  the  second  occasion  simply  repeated  his 
previous  statement,     '  He  saith  unto  them,  Moses  for  your  hardness      „    s 
of  heart  suifei'cd  you  to  put  away  your  wives  :  but  from  the  begin- 
ning- it  hath  not  been  so.'     Afford  notes  the  distinction  between  the 
word  '  command  '  used  by  the  Pharisees  in  verse  7  and  the  word 
'  sull'ered '   used   by  Jesus   in  verse  8,  and   says :    '  The   Pharisees 
imagine  that  they  have  overthrown  our  Lord's  decision  by  Vi. permis- 
sion of  the  law,  which  they  call  a  command.''     That  idea,  however 
natural,  is  displaced  by  Mark's  account,  for  he  represents  Jesus  to 
have  used  the  word  '  command,'  and  the  Pharisees  the  word  '  suffered.' 
The   permission  was,  in  fact,  a  prohibition  against   unconditional 
divorce,  a  command  not  to  divorce  without  first  writing  the  bill  of 
divorcement.     There  is  no  escape  from  the  conclusion  that   Jesus 
declared  the  command  or  permission  of  Moses  to  be  contrary  to  the 
command  and  will  of  God.     The  assertion  of  Jesus  involves  a  dis- 
tinction between  the  law  of  Moses  and  the  divine  law  ;  and  on  look- 
ing carefully  we  find  that  such  a  distinction  is  obvious  enough.    The 
law  of  divorce  is  laid  down  in  the  first  four  verses  of  the  '2ii\\ 
chapter  of  Deuteronomy.     It  is  embedded  among  a  large  number  of 
directions  and  ordinances  beginning  with  the  12ih  chapter,  and  pre- 
faced by  the  words  :  '  Ye  shall  observe  to  do  the  statutes  and  the  11  Ceu.  32 
judgments  which  I  set  before  you  this  day.'     The  words  are  the 
words  of  ]\Ioses  :  again  and  again  that  fact  is  brought  out  promi- 
nently.    '  In  the  place  which  the  Lord  shall  choose  in  one  of  thy  12  oeu.  14 
tribes,  there  thou  slialt  offer  thy  burnt  offerings,  and  there  shalt  thou 
do  all  that  I  command  thee.'     '  What  thing  soever  I  command  you,       ,,    ne 
that  shall  ye  observe  to  do.'     '  Wherefore  I  command  thee,  saying,  is  Deu.  r 
Thou  shalt  separate  three  cities  for  thee.'     '  Do  according  to  all  that  24  Deu.  s 
the  priests  the  Levites  shall  teach  you  :  as  I  commanded  them,  so 
shall  ye  observe  to  do.'     '  The  Lord  thy  God  redeemed  thee  thence  :       ■>     ^'^ 
therefore  I  conmiand  thee  to  do  this  thing.'     'And  Moses  and  the-"i^eu.  1 
elders  of  Israel  commanded  the  people,  saying,  Keep  all  the  command- 
ment which  I  command  you  this  day.'     Here  the  elders  are  repre- 
sented as  endorsing  the  law  laid  down  by  Moses.    He  himself  claimed 
a  divine  authority  for  it :  '  When  thou  shalt  hearken  to  the  voice  of  13  Deu.  is 
the  Lord  thy  God,  to  keep  all  his  commandments  which  I  command 
thee  this  day,  to  do  that  which  is  right  in  the  eyes  of  the  Lord  thy 
God.'     '  If  thou  shalt  hearken  unto  the  commandments  of  the  Lord  ;>8  Deu.  v^ 
thy  God,  which  I  command  thee  this  day,  to  observe  and  to  do  them,  ^^ 


184  THE   KING    AND    THE    KINGDOM:  [part  ii. 

and  shalt  not  turn  aside  from  any  of  the  words  ■which  I  command  you 
this  day.'  As  a  divinely-appointed  leg-islator  Moses  issued  his  edicts, 
but  throughout  tlieir  dehvery  his  own  personah'ty  stands  out  clearly 
and  unmistakably.  The  voice  is  human ;  at  the  most,  all  that  can  be 
asserted  is  that  the  speaker  has  God's  authority,  and  that  there  was 
a  blending  of  the  divine  with  the  human.  That  the  latter  prepon- 
derated over  the  former  is  sufficiently  indicated  by  the  frequent  repe- 
tition of  the  personal  pronoun  '  I.'  Knowing  well  the  people  with 
whom  he  had  to  deal,  Moses  deemed  it  wise  and  right  to  allow  a 
liberty  of  divorce,  fencing  it  round  with  certain  formalities  and 
restrictions,  so  that  it  might  at  least  be  a  deliberate,  public,  and 
irrevocable  act.  Alas  !  that  the  state  of  so-called  '  Christendom ' 
should  necessitate  the  jDerpetuatiou  in  our  own  time  of  the  permis- 
sion granted  by  Moses  to  a  nation  but  lately  redeemed  from  slavery, 
with  its  accompanying  degradation  and  lack  of  intellectual  and  moral 
culture.  How  far  off  are  we  still  from  the  mind  and  rule  of  Christ ! 
In  his  eyes  the  marriage  bond  was  divine,  too  sacred  for  man  to  sever: 
*  What  therefore  God  hath  joined  together,  let  not  man  put  asunder.' 
He  now  repeats  the  law  which,  according  to  ]\Iatthew,  he  laid  down 

9Ma\i)  in  the  sermon  on  the  mount:  'Whosoever  shall  put  away  his  wife, 
except  for  fornication,  and  shall  marry  another,  committeth  adultery : 
and  he  that  marrieth  her  when  she  is  put  away  committeth  adultery.' 
Jesus  is  not  speaking  of  the  guilt,  but  of  the  nature  of  the  act :  how- 
ever customary  or  legalised,  the  fact  of  promiscuous  sexual  intercourse 
was  patent  and  undeniable.  The  disruption  of  the  old  tie  and  the 
recognition  of  the  new,  are  both  equally  illegal  and  dishonourable  in 
the  eye  of  God.  The  perfection  of  manhood  and  womanhood  is 
marred,  when  husband  and  wife  are  sundered  :  divorce  is  as  it  were 
an  act  of  amputation,  and  a  second  marriage,  under  such  circum- 
stances, is  like  putting  on  another  person's  limb,  dibtiguriug  and 
monstrous  to  human  nature,  the  severance  and  the  misplacement 
being  alike  unnatural  and  revolting. 

There  is  some  uncertainty  as  to  the  proper  rendering  of  verse  I). 
The  Revisers  note  that  '  some  ancient  authorities '  adopt  the  reading 
of  5  Mat.  32,  namely  'saving  for  the  cause  of  instead  of  'except 
for,'  and  with  the  addition,  '  maketh  her  an  adulteress.'  Of  the  three 
oldest  MSS.  only  the  Vatican  has  this  addition.  The  Revisers  note 
further  that  the  following  words  '  are  omitted  by  some  ancient  autho- 
rities :'  'and  he  that  marrieth  her  when  she  is  put  away  committeth 
adultery.'  This  sentence  appears  to  have  been  inserted  to  correspond 
with  5  Mat.  32.  It  is  not  in  the  oldest  MS.,  and  Tischendorf  omits 
it.     Count  Leon  Tolstoi  asserts  that  there  has  been  a  mistranslation. 

Mat.  32  He  takes  the  original  Greek  words  seriatim:*  'parelcfos,  besides; 
loffoi/,  the  matter  ;  ponm'as,  of  lewdness  ;  poiei,  causes  ;  cnden,  her  ; 
moichasf/icii,  to  commit  adultery.'  In  the  lexicon  pareJctos  is  defined  : 
'out  of,  without,  besides;'  and  imrneia  is  defined:  'fornication, 
prostitution.'  Tolstoi  says  if  '^;o;7zm,  which  is,  in  all  translations 
except  the  English,  rendered  as  "adultery,"  in  the  same  way  as 
moichastJiai,  is,  in  reality,  quite  another  word.'  To  make  clear  the 
distinction,  he  chooses  the  w'ord  '  lewdness,'  as  equivalent  to  '  de- 
bauchery '  or  '  fornication,'  and  as  '  exjiressing  not  an  action,  but  a 

*  "What  I  Believe,"  p.  62.  f  "What  I  Believe,"  p.  81. 


PART  II.]         .1     HTUDY    OF    THE    FOUR    GOSPFLii.  185 

quality  or  state.'  lie  docs  not  scruple  to  say  :  'Every  (ireek  seliolar 
will  construe  the  passai;e  thus  .  .  .  Therefore  the  text  stands  word 
for  word  thus  :  He  who  divorces  his  wife,  besides  the  sin  of  lewdness, 
causes  her  to  commit  adultery.'  That  refers  to  the  oth  chapter. 
Tolstoi  adds  :  '  AVe  find  exactly  the  same  in  the  l!)th  chapter.  No 
sooner  is  the  incorrect  translation  of  the  word  porneia  amended,  as 
well  as  that  of  the  preposition  cpl,  which  has  been  translated  "for  ;" 
no  sooner  is  the  word  "lewdness"  placed  instead  of  "adultery,"  and 
the  preposition  "  by"  instead  of  "  for,"  than  it  grows  perfectly  clear 
that  the  words  ci  me  epi  porneia  can  have  no  reference  to  the  wife. 
And  as  the  ^vords par c/cios  lofjou  pornrias  can  have  no  other  meaning 
than  "  besides  the  sin  of  lewdness  of  the  husl)and,"  so  the  words  ei 
me  cpi  porneia,  which  Ave  find  in  the  I'Jth  chapter,  cau  have  no 
reference  to  anything  except  the  lewdness  of  the  husband.  It  is  said, 
ei  me  epi  porneia,  which,  being  translated  literally,  is,  "  if  not  by 
lewdness,"  "'  if  not  out  of  lewdness."  And  thus  the  meaning  is  clear 
that  Christ  in  this  passage  refutes  the  notions  of  the  Tharisees  that 
a  man  who  put  away  his  wife,  not  out  of  lewdness,  but  in  order  to 
live  matrimonially  with  another  woman,  did  not  commit  adultery; 
Christ  says  that  the  repudiation  of  a  wife,  even  if  it  be  not  done  out 
of  lewdness,  but  in  order  to  be  joined  in  bonds  of  matrimony  to 
another  woman,  is  adultery.'  Much  in  favour  of  Tolstoi's  argument 
is  the  fact,  that  the  word  ei,  '  if,'  is  omitted  byGriesbach,  Lachmann, 
Tischendorf,  Tregelles,  Alford  and  AVordsworth,  as  not  being  in 
accordance  with  the  best  readings  ;  and  also  the  fact  that  whether 
i'pi  be  rendered  '  by '  or  '  for,'  his  argument  is  equally  strong.  The 
question  is  both  novel  and  important,  and  calls  for  close  investiga- 
tion, the  intense  earnestness  and  honesty  of  Tolstoi  giving  weight  to 
his  opinion. 

Jesus  declared  that  to  be  wrong  in  the  sight  of  (lod  which  was 
justified  and  legalised  among  men.     So  rigid  did  his  doctrine  appear 
to  the  disciples,  that  they  exclaimed  that  it  would  be  inexpedient  for 
a  man  to  marry  under  such  conditions.    '  The  disciples  say  unto  him,  lo  jiat.  lo 
If  the  case  of*^  the  man  is  so  with  his  wife,  it  is  not  expedient  to 
marry.'     That  conclusion  Jesus  repudiated.     The  leading  of  a  single 
life  must  be  exceptional,  and  for  those  only  having  a  peculiarity  of 
constitution  or  temperament.     '  And  he  said  unto  them,  All  men      „    ii 
cannot  receive  this  saying,  but  they  to  whom  it  is  given.'     '  This 
saying '  appears  to  refer  to  the  opinion  just  expressed  by  the  discijDles, 
not  to  what  Jesus  had  previously  said.     A  similar  instance  occurred 
when  Jesus  replied  to  the  Canaanitish  woman,  '  For  this  saying  go  r  Jiaru  -'it 
thy  way.'     Jesus  went  on  to  explain  that  an  unmarried  life  was 
abnormal :  some  were  born  without  the  luitural  instinct  towards  mar- 
riage ;  some  were  compelled  by  position  or  circumstances  to  renounce 
it ;  some,  devoting   themselves  to  a  higher  and  heavenly  destiny, 
dehberately  avoided  it.     '  For  there  are  eunuchs  which  were  so  born  m  Mat.  12 
from  their  mother's  womb  ;  and  there  are  eunuchs  which  were  made 
eunuchs  by  men  ;    and  there  are  eunuchs  which  made  themselves 
eunuchs  for  the  kingdom  of  heaven's  sake.'     Such  a  maxim,  advocating 
a  solitary  life,  was  not  for  general  adoption,  but  for  those  who  were 
exceptionally  disposed  towards  it.     '  He  that  is  able  to  receive  it,  let      „     12 
him  receive  it.' 

The  teaching  of  Jesus  respecting  divorce  was  so  startling  to  the 


186  THE    KING    AND    THE    KINGDOM:  [part  ii. 

disciples,  that  in  the  privacy  of  their  common  home  they  again 
10  Mark  10  questiouecl  him  on  the  subject.  '  And  in  the  house  the  disciples  asked 
him  again  of  this  matter.'  Jesus  reiterated  his  former  dictum  :  he 
„  11, 1:2  had  nothing  to  retract,  nothing  to  modify.  '  And  he  saitli  unto  them. 
Whosoever  shall  put  away  his  wife,  and  marry  another,  committeth 
adultery  against  her  :  and  if  she  herself  shall  put  away  lier  husband, 
and  marry  another,  she  committeth  adulteiy.'  Be  it  observed  that 
there  is  here  nothing  which  can  be  construed  into  an  exception. 
Mark's  narrative  gives  no  hint  of  any  such  saving  clause.  This  is  in 
favour  of  Tolstoi's  argument  that  there  has  been  a  mistranslation  and 
misconception  ;  the  account  handed  down  to  -Mark,  and  by  him  to 
us,  would  surely  have  alhided  to  an  exception,  if  Jesus  had  been 
understood  to  have  made  one. 

The  following  parable,  recorded  by  Luke,  is  placed  immediately 
after  that  of  the  unjust  steward,  and  continues  the  train  of  thought 
with  respect  to  the  right  employment  of  wealth,  and  the  possible 
contrasts  in  men's  relati\'e  positions  here  and  hereafter.  Jesus  pic- 
10  Luke  i!i  tures  a  man  at  the  very  summit  of  prosperity  and  luxury.  '  Xow 
there  was  a  certain  rich  man,  and  he  was  clothed  in  purple  and  fine 
linen,  faring  sumptuously  every  day  (or,  living  in  mirth  and  splendour 
every  day).'  In  contrast;  to  this  man,  Jesus  describes  a  man  in  direst 
poverty,  reduced  to  the  utmost  extremity  of  want  and  misery.  He 
names  him  Lazarus,  '  God  is  my  help,'  as  indicating  that  he  had  no 
hope  of  human  succour.     His  pkice  w'as  at  the  outer  porch  of  that 

„  20  abode  of  magnificence  and  revelry.  'And  a  certain  beggar  named 
Lazarus  was  laid  at  his  gate.'  He  was  altogether  in  a  deplorable 
condition,  his  body  being  covered  with  sores,  and  hunger  impelling 
him  to  long  for  the  broken  victuals  which  came  from  the  well-spread 

..  -1  table  of  the  rich  man  :  '  full  of  sores,  and  desiring  to  be  fed  with  the 
criimhs  that  fell  from  the  rich  man's  table.'  The  Revisers  have 
italicised  the  Avord  'crumbs,'  and  Tischendorf,  following  the  two 
oldest  MS8.,  omits  it,  rendering  '  what  fell.'  The  only  companions 
of  the  poor  man  were  the  dogs,  probably  attracted  to  the  gate  by  the 
same   motive   as   himself,   and  these  dumb  creatures  showed  their 

.,  21  sympathy  by  licking  his  sores,  as  though  they  were  their  own.  '  Yea, 
even  the  dogs  came  and  licked  his  sores.'  Tischendorf  renders, 
'  usually  licked,'  and  Young's  literal  rendering  conveys  the  same  idea : 
'yea,  even  the  dogs,  coining,  were  licking  his  sores.'  So  much  only 
of  the  history  of  these  two  men  in  this  world.  Jesus  now  shows  them 
to  us  transported  to  another.     The  poor  man  died  first,  as  well  he 

„  22  might  from  semi-starvation  and  disease.  '  And  it  came  to  pass  that 
the  beggar  died.'  The  Eevisers  have  retained  the  word  '  beggar,' 
which  is  discarded  from  the  parable  by  Young  and  Tischendoi'f,  who 
adopt  instead  the  term  'poor  man.'  Luther  also  has  '  Armer,'  '  poor 
man.'  The  primary  sense  of  the  word,  jAdchos,  is  '  one  who  crouches 
or  cringes,'  from  pidsso,  to  crouch  or  cower.  It  will  be  well  for  us 
to  drop  the  idea  of  his  being  a  recognised  '  beggar,'  and  to  take  the 
parable  as  that  of  the  '  rich  man '  and  '  the  poor  man.'  Thus  viewed,  it 
has  a  fiir  wider  application  than  otherwise.  The  next  sentence  stands  in 
the  Authorised  Version :  '  and  was  carried  by  the  angels  into  Abraham's 

"  22  bosom,'  but  is  altered  by  the  Revisers  to  :  '  and  that  he  was  carried 
away  by  the  angels  into  Abraham's  bosom,'  Young's  literal  rendering 


PART  II.]         .1    STUDY    OF   THE    FOUR    GOUFELH.  187 

being:  'And  that  he -svas  carried  away  by  the  messengers  into  the 
bosom  of  Abraham.'  We  have  here,  to  say  tlie  least,  the  view  which 
Jesus  entertained  of  those  '  angels  '  or  '  messengers'  of  whom  we  read  : 
'Are  they  not  all  ministering  spirits,  sent  forth  to  do  service  for  the  i  n,-i,.  ii 
sake  of  them  that  shall  inherit  salvation  ? '  On  the  expression 
*  Abraham's  bosom,'  Alford  observes  :  '  This,  as  a  form  of  speech 
among  the  Jews,  was  not  even  by  themselves  understood  in  its  strict 
literal  sense  ;  and  though  the  purposes  of  ilie  parable  require  this, 
ver.  23,  no  one  would  think  of  pressing  it  into  a  truth,  but  all  would 
see  in  it  the  graphic  filling  up  uf  a  state  which  in  itself  is  strictly 
actual.'  The  expression  seems  to  have  been  a  proverbial  one,  indi- 
cating nearness  and  dearness,  and  the  Jewish  custom  of  reclining  at 
meals'was  in  itself  sufficient  to  make  this  meaning  obvious.  '  There  13  joim  ■:.; 
was  at  the  table  reclining  in  Jesus'  bosom  one  of  Ins  disciples,  whom 
Jesus  loved.'  The  fourth  evangelist  used  the  expression  as  one  recog- 
nised and  conveying  a  definite  meaning  :  '  The  only  begotten  Son,  1  j.ju,,  is 
which  is  in  the  bosom  of  the  Father.'  Tlie  figure  of  speech  had  been 
familiar  from  the  time  of  Moses,  who  used  it :  '  Havfc  1  conceived  all  11  Xun:.  i-. 
this  people  ?  have  I  brought  them  forth,  that  thou  shonldest  say  unto 
me,  Carry  them  m  thy  bosom,  as  a  nursing-father  carrieth  the  suck- 
ing child,  unto  the  laud  which  thou  swarest  nnto  their  fathers  ?  ' 
The  translation  of  Lazarus  to  Abraham's  bosom  may  be  taken  to 
denote  his  entrance  upon  a  career  under  the  patronage  and  guardian- 
ship of  the  venerated  father  of  the  Israelitish  nation.  The  teaching 
of  Jesus  is  throughout  intensely  human.  He  does  not  represent  the 
departed  spirit  as  summoned  before  a  divine  tribunal,  but  he  reveals 
another  world  with  relationships  between  men  analogous  to  and 
founded  upon  those  of  the  present  life.  The  departed  may  be  nearer 
to  us  even  on  earth  than  we  are  accustomed  to  suppose.  Who  would 
have  imagined,  when  Jesus  took  his  three  disciples  to  the  mountain- 
top,  that  it  was  for  the  purpose  of  meeting  and  conferring  with  ]\Ioses 
and  Elijah  ?  How  profoundly  interesting  is  the  prospect  of  futurity 
opened  out  to  us  by  these  hints  and  glimpses  of  the  spiritual  world  ! 

After  a  time  the  rich  man's  life  came  also  to  its  close.  '  And  the  10  luUo  -i-i 
rich  man  also  died,  and  was  buried.'  Through  the  grave  and  gate 
of  death  he  passed  on  to  far  other  experiences  than  those  of  this 
world.  Jesus  represents  hnn  in  a  condition  of  grievous  suliering. 
'And  in  Hades  he  lifted  up  his  eyes,  being  in  torments.'  The  „  '-^'^ 
Revisers  have  done  good  service  towards  removing  popular  miscon- 
ceptions by  altering  'hell'  to  'Hades.'  Here  is  Alford's  comment. 
'Hades,  in  Hebrew  Sheol,  is  the  abode  of  all  discmhodied  spiriis  till 
the  resurrection,  not,  the  place  of  torment, — much  less  'hell,'  as 
understood  commonly,  in  the  A.  V.  Lazarus  was  also  in  Hade's, 
but  separate  from  Dives  ;  one  on  the  blissful,  the  other  on  the  bale- 
ful side.  It  is  the  r/a Irs  of  Hades,  ihe  imprisonment  of  death,  which 
shall  not  prevail  against  the  Church  (Matt.  xvi.  18)  ;  the  Lord  holds 
the  keij  of  Hades.  (Rev.  i.  18).  Himself  went  into  the  same  Hades, 
of  which  Paradise  is  a  part,'  In  fiice  of  the  parable  itself,  the  con- 
ception of  Dives  and  Lazarus  as  '  disembodied  spirits '  is  a  strange 
cue  ;  the  words  '  till  the  resurrection,'  and  the  reference  to  another 
'  place  of  torment,'  are  thrown  in  glibly,  as  part  and  parcel  of  an 
accepted  creed,  but  such  ideas  are  not  the  teaching  of  Jesus,  and  a 
careful  investigation  is  needed  to  detect  and  expose  the  misconcep- 


188  THE    KING    AND    THE   KINGDOM:  [part  ii. 

tions  of  Scriptural  passag'es  on  which  such  erroneous  doctrines  are 
based.  In  the  next  hfe  the  relative  positions  of  tlie  two  men  were 
reversed.  Their  lots  still  lay  wide  apart ;  but  Lazarus  was  in  comfort 
and  liononr,  and  the  man  of  pomp  and  luxury  was  reduced  to  a  state 
of  anguish.  We  must  not,  however,  exaggerate  the  import  of  the 
expression,  '  being  in  torments.'  The  Greek  word  is  Imsanos,  from 
hasanizo,  and  both  noun  and  verb  were  employed  to  denote  afflictions 
and  labours  of  an  ordinary  kind,  as  in  the  following  passages. 
4  Mat.  -n  '  Holden  with  divers  diseases  and  torments  (basaiiois).'  '  Seeing 
<;Miuk4,s  them  distressed  ibasanizomenos)  in  rowing.'  'Vexed  (ehasanizeii) 
■2  ii.  Pet.  8  his  righteous  soul.'  Enough,  that  heavy  toil  or  discomfort  of  some 
kind  were  now  the  portion  of  the  man  once  rich  in  this  world,  and 
1(3  Luke  :23  that  abovc  him,  in  the  distance,  was  a  region  of  bliss:  'and  seeth 
Abraham  afar  off",  and  Lazarus  in  his  bosom.'  He  could  no  more 
hope  to  enter  that  bright  abode  than  Lazarus,  when  they  both  lived 
on  this  earth,  could  have  gained  admission  to  his  palace  of  feasting. 
But  he  prayed  that  some  assuagement  of  his  misery  might  be  \ouch- 
safed,  and  that  Lazarus  might  be  sent  to  moisten,  were  it  but  with 
■J4  a  drop  of  water,  his  fevered  tongue.  '  And  he  cried  and  said,  Father 
Abraham,  have  mercy  on  me,  and  send  Lazarus,  that  he  may  dip  the 
tip  of  his  finger  in  water,  and  cool  my  tongue  ;  for  I  am  in  anguish 
in  this  flame.'  Young  renders  :  '  I  am  sorrowing  in  this  flame,' 
the  '  Englishman's  Greek  Xew  Testament,'  '  I  am  suffering  ; '  the 
Authorised  Version  lias  :  '  I  am  tormented.'  The  Greek  verb  is 
odu/iaomai,  which  was  in  common  use  to  signify  any  great  mental 
--'  Luke  48  distress.  It  occurs  in  the  passages  :  '  Thy  father  and  I  sought  thee 
•JO  Acts  38  sorrowing  {odii.ndmenoi).''  '  iiovrowing  (ochowmr/wi)  most  of  all  for 
the  word  which  he  had  spoken.'  In  the  answer  of  the  patriarch 
there  was  a  tone  of  compassionate  sadness.  He  began  by  reminding 
this,  his  unhappy  descendant,  of  the  mutability  of  human  destiny, 
how  enjoyment  led  on  to  suffering,  and  suffering  was  a  discipline 
ir,  Luke  ^r,  preparatory  to  joy.  '  But  Abraham  said.  Son  (Gr.  Child),  remember 
that  thou  in  thy  lifetime  receivedst  thy  good  things,  and  Lazarus  in 
like  manner  evil  things  :  but  now  here  he  is  comforted,  and  thou  art 
in  anguish.'  Tischendorf  and  the  Revisers  have  introduced  the  word 
'  here,'  on  the  authority  of  the  three  oldest  ]MSS.  Young  renders  '  in 
anguish '  by  '  sorrowing  : '  it  is  the  same  word,  odunasai.  Small  as 
was  the  boon  now  craved,  there  stood  a  physical  impossibility  in  the 
,,  20  way  of  its  accomplishment.  'And  besides  all  this  (Or,  in  all  these 
things)  between  us  and  you  there  is  a  great  gulf  fixed.'  Y^oung 
renders,  '  And  besides  all  these  things.'  The  line  of  demarcation 
between  class  and  class  is  more  insuperable  in  hades  than  it  is  on 
„  ■->(•.  earth  :  '  that  they  which  would  pass  from  hence  to  you  may  not 
be  able,  and  that  none  may  cross  over  from  thence  to  us.'  The 
rendering  of  the  Authorised  Version  is  :  'so  that  they  which  would 
pass  from  hence  to  you  cannot ;  neither  can  they  pass  to  us,  that 
■would  come  from  thence.'  The  Revised  translation  is  stronger,  as 
indicating  not  simply  the  existence  of  such  an  obstacle,  but  the  fact 
it  was  designedly  set  up  to  prevent  closer  intercourse.  Tischendorf  s 
rendering  conveys  the  same  idea  :  '  that  they  who  desire  to  pass 
hence  to  you  may  not  be  able,  nor  those  cross  over  to  us  thence.' 
Young  does  not  render  '  may  not  be  able,'  but  the  form  he  adopts 
implies   an  insuperable  law  :  '  so   that  they  who  are  wishing  to  go 


I' ART  II. J         A    m'UDY    OF    THE    FOUR    GOSPELS.  189 

over  fi'om  heuce  to  yoii  are  unable,  nor  do  they  from  hence  to  ns  pass 
through.'  Forced  now  to  reeo<;-iiise  the  fact  that  any  immediate 
alleviation  of  his  own  sufferings  was  hopeless,  the  suppliant  turned 
his  thoughts  to  those  who  had  been  near  and  dear  to  him  on  earth, 
and  out  of  his  dread  lest  they  should  come  also  to  the  same  terrible 
experience  of  sufi'ering,  he  ventured  to  ask  that  Lazarus  might  be 
sent  to  them.  '  And  he  said,  I  pray  thee,  therefore,  father,  that  thou  i' 
wouldest  send  him  to  my  father's  house  ;  for  I  have  five  brethren.' 
The  expression  '  my  father's  house '  obviously  does  not  signify  '  my 
father's  abode,'  but  is  equivalent  to  ' my  family,'  the  word  '  house' 
being  similarly  joined  to  the  word  father's,  in  that  sense,  in  about 
50  passages  of  Scripture.  It  ^yas  a  request  that  Lazarus  might 
go  to  the  varions  members  of  the  family,  and  reveal  to  them  the 
penalties  attaching  hereafter  to  lives  misled  on  earth  :  '  that  he  may 
testify  nnto  them,  lest  they  also  come  into  this  place  of  torment.' 
The  word  rendered  torment  is  hasanou.  Young  renders,  '  thoroughly 
testify  ; '  the  Englishman's  G.  N.  T.,  '  earnestly  testify.'  The  idea 
did  not  commend  itself  to  the  judgment  of  the  patriarch.  The  law 
and  the  prophets  were  enough  for  the  teaching  of  mankind.  '  But 
Abraham  saitli.  They  have  Moses  and  the  prophets  ;  let  them  hear 
them.'  Not  so,  it  was  argned  :  but  a  messenger  direct  from  the 
world  beyond  the  grave  Avould  startle  them  into  a  reformation  of  life. 
'And  he  said,  Nay,  father  Abraham  :  but  if  one  go  to  them  from  the 
dead,  they  Avill  repent.  Young,  as  usual,  renders  '  repent '  by 
'reform.'  However  plausible  the  suggestion,  it  was  based  on  an 
error  of  judgment,  Abraham  held  a  contrary  opinion.  '  And  he 
said  unto  him.  If  they  hear  not  Moses  and  the  prophets,  neither  will 
they  be  persuaded  if  one  rise  from  the  dead.' 

To  this  marvellous  parable  not  a  word  was  added  by  way  of  com- 
ment or  explanation :  we  are  left  to  interpret  and  apply  it  as  we  will. 
If  it  had  been  uttered  by  any  one  except  Jesus  himself,  it  would  have 
been  worth  no  more  to  us  than  one  of  ^Esop's  fables.  The  value  of 
any  moral  teaching  contained  in  it  would  have  been  more  than  counter- 
balanced by  our  uncertainty  as  to  the  truthfulness  and  reality  of  the 
groundwork  on  which  the  narrati\'e  rests.  If  its  revelations  of  a 
future  life  were  purely  imaginary,  they  would  be  not  only  unreliable, 
but  misleading.  Only  our  confidence  in  Jesus  can  induce  us  to 
attach  importance  to  his  teaching  on  matters  beyond  the  reach  of 
ordinary  human  knowledge.  We  know  of  his  miraculous  birth,  his 
superhuman  Avords  and  works,  his  converse  with  Moses  and  Elijah 
when  he  was  transfigured  on  the  mount,  his  resurrection  from  the 
dead,  and  his  ascension  into  heaven :  and  our  belief  in  all  these 
things  impels  us  to  receive  Avith  reverence  this  parable  of  the  rich 
man  and  Lazarus.  Every  parable  delivered  by  Jesus  on  earthly 
matters  withiu  our  cognizance,  is  true  to  nature,  and  consistent  with 
actual  experience  ;  and  Ave  may  be  confident  that  he  is  equally  accu- 
rate and  reliable  when  revealing  to  us  the  laws  and  conditions  of 
'heavenly  things.'  The  folloAving  deductions  are  inseparable  from  the 
parable,  and  are  therefore  stamped  Avith  the  authority  of  Jesus. 

1.  The  life  of  each  individual  on  earth  is  but  the  prelude  to  life  in 
another  world. 

2.  Angelic  ministrations  are  needed  and  granted  in  the  Avorld  to 
come. 


190  THE    KING    AND    THE    KINGDOM:  [part  ii. 

3.  Human  destinies  differ  there,  as  here,  class  beino-  separate  from 
class  ;  and  acute  suffering-  may  be  experienced  by  one  iudi^'idual,  and 
perfect  enjoyment  by  another. 

4.  In  the  future  life  there  will  be  a  clear  recollection  of  the  former 
life,  and  the  grouping  of  society  there  is  on  the  earthly  pattern,  so 
that  neighbours  will  recognise  each  other,  and  there  \fill  be  a  con- 
sciousness and  acknowledgment  of  previous  social  and  family  rela- 
tionships. 

5.  The  introduction  of  Abraham  into  the  parable  involves  the 
doctrine  of  a  perpetuity  of  existence  :  not  necessarily  an  unchange- 
able, inextinguishable  existence,  for  there  may  be  other  deaths  and 
other  resurrections  analogous  to  the  first  death  and  the  first  resur- 
rection. The  'age-during  life,'  of  which  Jesus  so  often  spoke, 
embodies  the  idea  of  an  appointed  term  :  the  revivification  which 
comes  after  the  close  of  the  present  life,  may  it  not  be  granted  also 
at  the  culmination  and  crisis  of  the  next  stage  of  being,  life  and 
death  alternating,  life  ever  triumphing  over  death,  the  tendency 
deathward  declining,  and  the  tendency  lifeward  augmenting,  until, 

iM>.  iG  like  our  Lord  Jesus,  we  are  made  'after  the  power  of  an  endless  (Gr. 
indissoluble)  life  ? '  That  is  the  conception  of  human  destiny  which 
seems  best  to  elucidate,  combine  and  harmonise  the  promises  of  our 
Redeemer  and  all  other  revelations  of  Scripture. 

G.  The  next  state  of  being  is  revealed  to  us  subject  to  laws,  phy- 
sical and  moral,  as  immutable  as  those  which  encompass  us  on  earth. 
The  line  of  demarcation  between  class  and  class  is  represented  as  rigid 
in  the  extreme.  Divine  Providence  has  fixed  certain  boundaries  wdiich 
none,  though  urged  by  the  most  charitable  motives,  may  seek  to  over- 
pass. The  more  perfect  the  condition  of  society,  the  more  imperative 
does  it  become  to  remove  the  evil  from  the  proximity  of  the  good. 
The  two  principles  of  good  and  evil  must,  if  brought  into  contact, 
involve  ceaseless  strife  ;  the  ethics  of  Christianity  require  for  their 
free,  unchecked  development  a  complete  immunity  fi'om  the  hostile 
jjowers  of  unrighteousness.  That  is  the  condition  of  humanity  here- 
after, as  sketched  out  by  Jesus.  Puuishment  by  way  of  penalty  and 
retribution  is  not  hinted  at,  but  conduct  and  destiny  are  revealed 
linked  together  as  cause  and  effect.  And  there  is  a  recognised  con- 
tinuity of  being, — no  hiatus  between  the  concerns  of  this  life  and  the 
next, — but  the  one  leading  up  naturally  and  inevitably  to  the  other : 
that  was  the  ground  of  anxiety  with  respect  to  the  five  brethren  still 
living  upon  earth. 

7.  The  closing  words  of  the  parable,  '  if  one  rise  from  the  dead,' 
indicate  what  is  meant  in  other  passages  by  a  similar  form  of  expres- 
sion :  not,  that  is,  the  resurrection  from  death  to  life,  but  the  revisit- 
ing of  tlie  living  by  the  dead. 

In  this  parable  it  is  clear,  beyond  the  possibility  of  doubt  or  gain- 
saying, that  Jesus  taught  the  doctrine  of  an  individual,  personal  resur- 
rection of — not  from — the  dead.  In  face  of  this,  and  of  the  plain 
teaching  of  Paul  and  other  apostles,  it  is  a  marvel  and  mystery  how 
that  earnest  searcher  after  truth,  Count  Leon  Tolstoi,  could  have  been 
led  to  form  and  express  the  following  opinion:  'And  strange  as  it 
may  seem  to  say  so  of  Christ,  who  Himself  rose  from  the  dead,  and 
who  promised  to  raise  all  men,  He  never  by  a  single  word,  confirmed 
the  belief  in  individual  resurrection,  in  individual  immortality  beyond 


PART  11.]         .1    STUDY    OF    THE    FOUR    GOSPELS.  191 

tlic  o-ravc,  but  He  even  attached  to  tlie  raising-  up  of  the  dead  in  tlie 
kingdom  of  the  ]\[essiah,  as  taught  by  tlie  Pharisees,  a  meaning  wiiich 
excluded  the  idea  of  individual  resurrection.'  *  Again  :  '  Christ  could 
never  have  supposed  so  strange  an  idea  among  His  followers.  He 
supposes  all  men  to  understand  that  individual  life  must  inevitably 
perish  ;  and  he  reveals  a  life  which  cannot  perish.'  Again  :  '  The 
■whole  purport  of  Christ's  doctrine  is  to  teach  His  disciples  that  indi- 
vidual life  being  but  a  delusion  they  should  renounce  it,  and  transfer 
their  individual  lives  into  the  lives  of  all  humanity,  into  the  life  of  the 
son  of  man.'  Tolstoi  has  been  misled  by  his  own  imagination.  Let 
it  suffice  to  say  that  his  misconceptions  are  based  upon  a  misappre- 
hension of  the  meaning  of  the  words  he  quotes,  namely,  '  AVith  (Jod 
all  are  living,'  from  which  he  hastily  draws  the  conclusion,  as  though 
it  were  the  only  conceivable  one  :  '  And  therefore,  if  there  be  a  living 
God,  the  man  who  is  one  with  God  lives  too.'  The  mind  of  Tolstoi 
is,  as  it  vv'ere,  microscopic :  his  earnest  gaze  on  some  particular  pas- 
sages may  reveal  depths  of  truth  and  reality  which,  fur  want  of  such 
a  power  of  concentration,  have  been  passed  over  by  others  ;  but  when 
his  focus  of  vision  is  disarranged,  a  truth  becomes  distorted,  and  an 
error  magnified.  Take,  as  an  example  of  his  self-deceptive  reasoning, 
the  following  explanation  on  another  subject :  '  It  was  necessary  to 
feed  several  thousand  men.  One  of  the  disciples  said  to  Christ  that 
a  boy  there  had  a  few  fishes.  The  disciples  had  also  a  few  loaves. 
Christ  knew  that  some  of  those  who  had  come  from  a  distance  had 
brought  food  with  them  and  others  had  not.  That  many  had  brought 
provisions  with  them  is  evident  from  there  being  twelve  basketfuls 
gathered  of  what  remained,  as  we  read  in  all  the  four  Gospels.  (If 
nobody  had  had  anything  except  the  boy,  there  would  not  have  been 
twelve  baskets  in  the  field.)  Had  Christ  not  done  what  he  did,  that 
is,  the  "miracle"  of  feeding  thousands  with  five  loaves,  what  now 
takes  place  in  the  world  would  have  taken  place  then.  Those  who 
had  provisions  with  them  would  have  eaten  all  they  had,  would  have 
overeaten  themselves  rather  than  that  anything  should  have  been  left. 
Misers  would  perhaps  have  taken  the  remainder  home.  Those  who 
had  nothing  would  have  remained  hungry,  looking  on  with  wicked 
envy  at  those  who  ate,  and  some  would  very  likely  have  stolen  from 
those  who  had  provisions.  Quarrelling  and  fighting  would  have 
ensued,  and  some  would  have  gone  home  satisfied,  the  others  hungry 
and  cross ;  exactly  what  takes  place  in  our  present  lives  would  have 
happened  then.  But  Christ  knew  what  he  meant  to  do  ;  He  told 
them  all  to  sit  in  a  circle,  and  enjoined  his  disciples  to  Qffer  a  part  of 
what  they  had  to  those  next  them,  and  to  tell  others  to  do  the  same. 
The  result  was,  that  when  all  those  who  had  brought  provisions  with 
them  followed  the  example  set  them  by  the  disciples,  and  offered  a 
share  of  their  provisions  to  others,  there  was  enough  for  all.  All 
were  satisfied,  and  so  much  rem.ained  that  twelve  baskets  were 
filled.' 

It  is  a  beantiful  conception  of  Tolstoi's,  and  admirably  worked  out. 
At  first  one  is  inclined  to  rub  one's  eyes,  and  wonder  why  so  simple 
an  explanation  of  the  '  miracle  '  has  never  presented  itself  before.  But 
how  came  it  to  pass  that  not  one  of  the  four  evangelists  presented  it 

*  "What  I  Believe,"  pp.  135,  147,  li6. 


192  THE    KING    AND    THE    KINGDOM:  [part  ii. 

ill  that  light  ?  Auy  one  of  them,  by  introducing  a  sentence  or 
simply  turning  a  phrase,  could  have  made  the  matter  as  clear  to  us  as 
Tolstoi  has  done.  Not  a  liint  of  his  interpretation  is  conveyed  by 
the  narratives  ;  not  a  word  about  the  multitude  having  food  left  of 
their  own  ;  no  such  expression  as  he  uses,  '  tell  others  to  do  the 
same  ; '  nothing  to  lead  to  the  conclusion  that  '  those  who  had 
brought  provisions  with  them  followed  the  example  set  them  by  the 
Ii  Mark  44  disciplcs.'  Ou  the  contrary,  Mark  ends  with  the  words,  '  And  they 
G  joiui  13  that  ate  the  loaves  were  five  thousand  men,'  and  John  says  that  '  they 
filled  twelve  baskets  with  broken  pieces  from  the  five  barley  loaves.' 
,,  20  When  Jesus  alludes  to  the  miracle,  it  is  in  the  same  strain  :  '  Ye  seek 
me,  not  because  ye  saw  signs,  but  because  ye  ate  of  the  loaves,  and 
were  filled.'  In  the  similar  miracle,  when  four  thousand  were  fed 
with  seven  loaves  and  a  few  fishes,  there  is  nothing  mentioned  con- 
sistent with  the  idea  of  Tolstoi,  nothing  about  the  people  bringing 
out  their  own  stores  of  food,  but  on  the  contrary,  Matthew  and  Mark 
ij  Milt.  3l>  agree  as  to  the  exact  words  of  Jesus:  'I  have  compassion  on  the 
s  Mark  i  multitude,  because  they  continue  with  me  now  three  days  and  have 
nothing  to  eat.'  And  when  Jesus  referred  to  both  miracles,  the 
number  of  loaves  he  specifies  as  divided  among  the  multitude  is  five 
10  yud.  ;i,  10  and  seven.  '  Do  ye  not  yet  perceive,  neither  remember  the  five  loaves 
of  the  five  thousand,  and  how  many  baskets  ye  took  up  ?  Neither 
the  seven  loaves  of  the  four  thousand,  and  how  mauy  baskets  ye  took 
up  ? '  Count  Tolstoi  seems  incapable  of  extending  his  range  of  vision 
outside  his  own  argument :  he  is  blind  to  the  facts  which  tell  against 
it.  In  the  same  way,  in  framing  his  theory  about  the  resurrection, 
he  overlooks  the  parable  of  the  rich  man  and  Lazarus,  the  revelation 
of  ]\Ioses  and  Elijah  ou  the  mount,  and  the  sublime  reasoning  of  Paul 
in  the  fifteenth  chapter  of  the  first  epistle  to  the  Corinthians.  The 
errors  of  Christianity  have  ever  arisen  from  the  mistakes  of  its 
friends,  and  it  behoves  us  to  be  on  our  guard  against  them,  thankful 
for  any  fresh  light,  yet  watchful  against  mistakes  of  judgment, 
seeking  to  sift  the  true  from  the  false,  and  following  no  man  blindly. 
Holding  fast  to  the  doctrine  of  a  resurrection  of  the  dead,  it  must 
prove  rather  a  curse  than  a  blessing  if  it  leads  to  a  neglect  of  the 
obligations  resting  upon  Christians  in  the  present  life.  This  is 
wisely  and  forcibly  insisted  on  by  Mr.  J.  A.  Froude.  He  says  :  *  '  The 
Egyptians,  in  the  midst  of  their  corruptions,  had  inherited  the  doctrine 
from  their  fathers  which  is  considered  the  foundation  of  all  religion. 
They  believed  in  a  life  beyond  the  grave — in  the  judgment  bar  of 
Osiris,  at  which  they  were  to  stand  on  leaving  their  bodies,  and  in  a 
future  of  happiness  or  misery  as  they  had  lived  well  or  ill  u])on  earth. 
It  was  not  a  speculation  of  philosophers — it  was  the  popular  creed  ; 
and  it  was  held  with  exactly  the  same  kind  of  belief  with  which  it  has 
been  held  by  the  Western  nations  since  their  conversion  to  Chris- 
tianity. But  what  was  the  practical  effect  of  their  belief  ?  There  is 
no  doctrine,  however  true,  which  works  mechanically  on  the  soul  like 
a  charm.  The  expectation  of  a  future  state  may  be  a  motive  for  the 
noblest  exertion,  or  it  may  be  an  excuse  for  acquiescence  in  evil,  and 
serve  to  conceal  and  perpetuate  the  most  enormous  iniquities.  The 
magnate  of  Thebes  or  Memphis,  with  his  huge  estates,  his  town  and 

*  "  On  Progress." 


PART  II.]         A    STUDY    OF    THE    FOUR    GOSPELS.  193 

countrv  palaces,  his  retinue  of  eunuchs,  and  his  slaves  whom  he 
counted  by  thousands,  was  able  to  say  to  himself,  if  he  thought  at  all, 
*•  True  enough,  there  are  inequalities  of  fortune,  but  it  is  only  for  a 
time  after  all ;  they  have  immortal  souls,  poor  devils  !  and  their 
wretched  existence  here  is  but  a  drop  of  Avater  in  the  ocean  of 
their  being.  They  ha\-e  as  good  a  chance  of  Paradise  as  I  have — 
perha]w  better.  Osiris  will  set  all  right  hereafter  ;  and  for  the  present 
rich  and  poor  are  an  ordinance  of  Providence,  and  there  is  no  occa- 
sion to  disturb  established  institutions.  For  myself,  I  have  drawn  a 
prize  in  the  lottery,  and  I  hope  I  am  grateful.  I  subscribe  hand- 
somely to  the  temiile  services.  I  am  myself  punctual  in  my  religious 
duties.  The  priests,  who  are  wiser  than  I  am,  pray  for  me,  and  they 
tell  me  I  may  set  my  mind  at  rest."  Under  this  theory  of  things  the 
Israelites  had  been  ground  to  powder.  They  broke  away.  They  too 
Avere  to  become  a  nation.  A  revelation  of  the  true  (lod  was  bestowed 
on  them,  from  which,  as  from  a  fountain,  a  deeper  knowledge  of  the 
Divine  nature  was  to  flow  out  over  the  earth  ;  and  the  central  thought 
of  it  was  the  realization  of  the  Divine  government — not  in  a  vague 
hereafter,  but  in  the  living  present.  The  unpractical  prospective 
justice  which  had  become  an  excuse  for  tyranny,  was  superseded  by 
an  immediate  justice  in  time.  They  were  to  reap  the  harvest  of  their 
deeds,  not  in  heaven,  but  on  earth.  There  was  no  life  in  the  grave 
whither  they  were  going.  The  future  state  was  withdrawn  from  their 
sight  till  the  mischief  which  it  had  wrought  was  forgotten.  It  was 
not  denied,  but  it  was  veiled  in  a  cloud.  It  was  left  to  private 
opinion  to  hope  or  to  fear  ;  but  it  was  no  longer  held  out  either  as  an 
excitement  to  piety,  or  a  terror  to  evil  doers.  The  God  of  Israel  was 
a  living  God,  and  His  power  was  displayed  visibly  and  immediately 
in  rewarding  the  good  and  punishing  the  wicked  while  they  remained 
in  the  flesh.  It  would  be  unbecoming  to  press  the  parallel,  but 
phenomena  are  showing  themselves  which  indicate  that  an  analogous 
suspension  of  belief  provoked  by  the  same  causes  may  possibly  be 
awaiting  ourselves.  The  relations  between  man  and  man  are  now 
supposed  to  be  governed  by  natural  laws  which  enact  themselves 
independent  of  considerations  of  justice.  Political  economy  is  erected 
into  a  science,  and  the  shock  to  our  moral  nature  is  relieved  by  the 
reflection  that  it  refers  only  to  earth,  and  that  justice  may  take  eff"ect 
hereaftei'.  Science,  however,  is  an  inexorable  master.  The  evidence 
for  a  hereafter  depends  on  considerations  which  science  declines  to 
entertain.  To  piety  and  conscientiousness  it  appears  inherently  pro- 
bal:)le  ;  but  to  the  calm,  unprejudiced  student  of  realities,  piety  and 
conscientiousness  are  insuflUcient  witnesses  to  matters  of  fact.  The 
religious  passions  have  made  too  many  mistakes  to  be  accepted  as  of 
conclusive  authority.  Scientific  habits  of  thought,  which  are  more 
and  more  controlling  us,  demand  external  proofs  which  are  difficult 
to  find.  It  may  be  that  we  require  once  more  to  have  the  living 
certainties  of  the  Divine  government  brought  home  to  us  more  pal- 
pably ;  that  a  doctrine  which  has  been  the  consolation  of  the  heavy- 
laden  for  eighteen  hundred  years  may  have  generated  once  more  a 
prnctical  infidelity,  and  that  by  natural  and  intelligent  agencies,  in 
the  furtherance  of  the  everlasting  purposes  of  our  Father  in  heaven. 
the  belief  in  a  life  beyond  the  grave  may  again  be  about  to  be  with- 
drawn.' 


194  THE    KING    AND    THE    KINCWOM :  [part  ii. 

This  voice  of  warning  is  not  lifted  np  without  a  cause.  They  are 
not  fit  for  the  hope  of  a  life  to  come,  who  make  no  effort  to  realise 
the  Christ-like  life  on  earth. 

Immediately  followino-  the  paral>le  of  the  rich  man  and  Lazarus  is 
IT  Luke  1     placed  a  discourse  of  Jesus  to  his  disciples.     'And  he  said  unto  his 
disciples,  It  is  impossible  but  that  occasions  of  stumbling  should 
come.'     This  corresponds  with  Young's  word  '  stumbling-blocks,'  in 
place  of  '  offences '  in  the  Authorised  Version.     The  term  '  stum- 
bling-block '  conveys  the  idea  of  something  laid  in  the  way  of  social 
progress,  something  which  is  detrimental  to  the  general  welfare,  a 
cause  of  danger  to  many  and  of  injury  to  some.     The  condition  of 
society  excludes  the  hope  of  immunity  from  such  evils  :  they  '  come ' 
inevitably,  generated  out  of  the  imperfections  of  humanity.     If  they 
who  fall  and  suffer  by  them  are  to  be  pitied,  much  more  miser- 
able and  condemnable  are  the  men  by  whom  they  are  originated  and 
„     1       perpetuated.     Jesus  added  :  '  but  woe  unto  him,  through  whom  they 
come.'     Sharpe  renders  :  '  but  alas  for  him,'  which  throws  a  tone  of 
compassion  into  the  threat.     A  premature  and  ignominious  death 
would  be  preferable  to  a  life  prolonged  to  exercise  an  obstructive 
„     J      influence.     '  It  were  well  for  him  if  a  millstone  were  hanged  about 
his  neck,  and  he  v/ere  thrown  into  the  sea,  rather  than  that  he  should 
cause  one  of  these  little  ones  to  stumble.'     The  original  is  stronger 
than  the  translation.     Shaipe  renders,  '  an  upper  millstone  '  ;  Young 
'  a  mighty  millstone  '  ;  the  '  Englishman's  Greek  ISTew  Testament,'  '  a 
millstone'  turned   by  an  ass,'     The   expression,  '  these  little   ones ' 
must  refer  to  the  disciples,  to  whom  the  discourse  was  addressed. 
Jesus  was  accustomed  to  allude  to  them  under   that  designation. 
10  Mat.  42     'Whosoever  shall  give  to  drink  unto  one  of  these  little  ones  a  cup 
isM;it.  c      of  cold  water  only,  in  the  name  of  a  disciple  .  .  .'     'One  of  these 
little  ones  which  believe  on   me.'      Jesus  was  ever  mindful  of  the 
fact  that  those  who  followed  his  teaching  and  example  were  shorn  of 
the  powers  of  resistance  and  self-defence.     So  much  the  worse  for 
them,  from  the  point  of  view  of  this  world.     So  much  the  worse 
for  their  oppressors,  Avheu   the   rulership   of   Jesus   is   established. 
Meantime,  he  counsels  his  disciples  to  be  vigilant  over  themselves, 
17  Luke  3     allowiug  uo  siu  in  their  midst  to  pass  without  rebuke.     '  Take  heer! 
to  yourselves  :   if  thy  brother  sin,  rebuke  him.'     iVot  punishment, 
threats  or  litigation,  but  argument,  expostidation,  rebuke  must  be 
resorted  to.     Should  that  prove  effectual,  the  matter  must  end  with 
amendment  on  the  one  side   and  forgiveness   on   the   other.     The 
3     offence  must  be  condoned,  not  avenged  :  '  and  if  he  repent,  forgive 
him.'     Young  here,  as  elsewhere,  renders  '  repent '  as  '  reform  '  ;  but 
the  definition  of  the  verb  metcmoed  is  :  '  to  perceive  afterwards  or  too 
late.     2  to  change   one's  mind  or  opinion.     3  to  repent,'  and  the 
noun  mrfcmoia,  rendered  by  Young  '  reformation,'  is  defined  :  '  after- 
thought :   change   of   mind   on   reflection,   repentance.'     Of  course 
change  of  thought  or  purpose  must  take  a  practical  form  ;  but  the 
will  is  the  mainspring  of  conduct,  and  as  soon  as  mind  and  heart 
begin  to  move  aright,  rebuke  should  cease.     'No  matter  how  often 
the  offence  might  be  renewed  :   human   nature  is  most  weak  when 
most  erring,  and  the  spirit  of  forgiveness  must  not  be  less  persistent 
„     4     than  the  evil  which  calls  for  its  exercise.     '  And  if  he  sin  against 


I'AHT  II.]         A    STL'I>Y    OF    THE    FOUll    GOSFELS.  195 

tlicc  seven  times  in  the  day,  and  seven  times  turn  as^ain  to  thee, 
saying,  I  repent ;  thou  shalt  fori>'ive  liim.'  Following  the  two 
oldest  MS8.  the  Revisers  do  not  repeat  'in  a  day'  before  'turn.' 
The  precejit  ainis  at  the  maintenance  of  a  spirit  of  watchfulness  and 
of  healthy  criticism.  The  Avord '  brother  '  indicates  that  the  Christian 
community  is  referred  to,  not  the  outside  world.  Between  the 
followers  of  Jesus  no  wrong  must  be  suffered,  and  no  tame  submission 
to  wrong  doing  is  inculcated.  Brother  should  rebuke  brotlier,  and  a 
discipline  of  virtue  and  rectitude  be  encouraged  and  upheld  :  not, 
liowever,  by  punishment  meted  out  under  the  idea  of  retributive 
justice,  the  penalty  being  proportioned  to  the  offence  ;  but  by  the 
development  of  a  proper  spirit  and  right  judgment  :  immediately 
the  offender  is  conscious  of  his  fiiult  and  desirous  to  amend  it,  no 
further  rebuke  is  required.  Keformation  can  only  proceed  from 
within,  through  a  change  in  the  mind  of  the  offender  himself,  and 
the  instant  that  becomes  evident,  the  end  of  reproof  is  gained,  and  no 
further  pressure  should  be  applied.  It  must  not  l)c  assumed  that  the 
habit  of  repeated  forgiveness  is  inculcated  mei'oly  with  reference  to 
the  perfecting  of  the  character  of  the  offended  person,  that  he  may 
become  more  Christ-like.  Jesus  had  at  heart  the  welfare  of  all,  and 
if  he  advises  the  acceptance  of  an  express  desire  and  intention  of 
amendment,  it  is  because  that  is  the  most  efficacious  method  of 
dealing  with  wrong-doers,  the  course  best  calculated  to  promote  not 
only  the  peace  but  the  perfection  of  the  Christian  community.  The 
counsels  of  Jesus  with  respect  to  Church  government  have  not  been 
recognised  or  adopted  :  that  '  force  is  no  remedy '  is  a  maxim  of  the 
highest  wisdom,  constituting  tlie  very  essence  of  Christian  judicature  ; 
the  object  is  not  to  punish  criminals,  but  to  reform  them.  Jesus 
gave  his  followers  power  to  remit  sins,  but  not  to  avenge  them.  His 
strongest  weapon  is  'rebuke';  if  the  sinner  'turn  again,'  nothing  is  ji^tarj- 
more  could  be  desired  ;  if  not,  Jesus  has  elsewhere  laid  down  a 
course  of  procedure  which  has  been  strangely,  sadly  overlooked,  a 
scheme  of  Church  discipline  which  has  yet  to  be  urged,  tested,  estab- 
lished, before  it  can  be  asserted  that  Christianity  has  been  even 
tried,  much  less  found  wanting.  The  existence,  for  example,  of 
wars  between  so  called  Christian  nations,  is  of  itself  a  proof  that 
there  is  no  such  thing  as  national  Christianity:  all  fightings  are 
contrary  to  the  spirit  of  its  Founder,  whose  '  kingdom  is  not  of  this 
world,'  and  who  laid  down  as  a  maxim  of  belief  and  ])ractice  that  '  all  -(J  Mat.  02 
they  that  take  the  sword  shall  perish  with  the  sword.' 

The  Evangelist  proceeds  :  'And  the  apostles  said  unto  the  Lord,  i" Luke 5 
Increase  our  faith.'  The  introduction  of  the  Avords  '  the  Lord,' 
instead  of  'him/  seems  to  indicate  that  this  aa as  not  a  continuation 
of  the  preceding  subject  :  there  is  certainly  no  apparent  connection 
between  forgiveness  and  faith.  To  the  request  of  the  disciples  Jesus 
gave  a  very  remarkable  ansAA'er.  He  seems  not  to  admit  the  idea  of 
any  need  for  the  increase  of  faith,  declaring,  on  the  contrary,  that 
the  minutest  imaginable  quantity  Avas  sufficient  to  Avork  the  greatest 
conceivable  miracle.  '  And  the  Lord  said,  If  ye  have  faith  as  a  „  o 
grain  of  mustard  seed,  ye  would  say  unto  this  sycamine  tree,  Be  thou 
rooted  up,  and  be  thou  planted  in  the  sea  ;  and  it  Avould  have  obeyed 
you.'     A  very  strong  hyperbole,  this  !    But  is  it  anything  more  than 

0  2 


196  THE    KING    AND    THE    KINGDOM:  [part  ii. 

an  exaggerated  figure  of  speech  ?  Having  regard  to  tlie  Speaker,  it 
]uay  carry  a  meaning  which  it  could  not  bear  had  it  fallen  from  the 
lips  of  an  ordinary  man.  It  raises  the  question  of  the  power  of  mind 
over  matter.  There  are  subtle  influences  at  work  in  nature,  acting 
invisibly  and  even  independently  of  volition,  which  are  as  certain 
and  mighty  in  operation  as  they  are  inscrutable  and  astounding. 
Magnetic  attraction  is  a  mystery  and  marvel.  Who  can  explain  why 
the  compass  points  invariably  to  the  north  ?  "What  is  the  occult 
property  in  the  loadstone,  which  causes  a  piece  of  iron  to  fly  to  it 
through  space,  and  then  adhere  so  firmly  ?  There  dwells  in  the 
magnet  an  inexplicable  force  ;  give  it  a  name  :  call  it  attraction  : 
the  mystery  remains  as  great  as  ever.  Is  it,  then,  a  thing  incredible, 
that  there  should  emanate  from  the  human  mind  a  power  analogous  to 
that  which  we  know  can  exist  in  a  piece  of  metal  ?  Give  that  power 
a  name  :  call  it  faith  :  you  do  not  thereby  elucidate  the  marvel  : 
you  simply  define  the  existence  of  an  inherent  quality  and  force  in 
mind,  that  is,  in  a  certain  combination  of  spirit  Avith  matter.  Jesus 
asserts  the  possibility  of  what  we,  in  our  blind  ignorance,  would 
declare  to  be  impossible.  This  question  reaches  to  the  very  basis  of 
our  belief  in  Deity.  Either  the  order  of  the  universe  was  self- 
generated,  or  it  has  been  arranged  by  a  supreme  Spirit  working 
upon  unconscious  matter.     That  was  the  belief  of  the  Psalmist  : 

33  Psa.  6  '  By  the  word  of  the  Lord  were  the  heavens  made  ; 

And  all  the  host  of  them  h\  the  breath  of  his  mouth, 
,,    !>  For  he  spake,  and  it  was  done  ; 

He  commanded,  and  it  stood  fast.' 
Jesus  bade  his  disciples  recognise  the  rudiments  of  a  similar  God- 
like power  in  themselves.  What  is  faith  but  assurance, — confidence, 
— the  conviction  that  what  we  will  to  do  is  ensured  by  the  act  of 
willing  ?  I  will  to  move  my  finger,  and  it  is  done  :  I  had  the  faith 
that  I  could  move  it,  and  the  result  corresponded  to  the  conviction. 
I  have  no  faith,  not  one  grain  of  faith,  that  I  can  uproot  a  tree  :  but 
if  I  had  that  faith,  the  act  would  lie  within  the  compass  of  my  power. 
The  infant  unfolds  day  by  day  new  attributes,  the  claild  develops  new 
capacities,  the  adult  puts  forth  new  energies  ;  and  as  with  the  indivi- 
dual, so  with  the  race.  Out  of  the  gloom  of  barbarism  the  nations 
have  gradually  emerged  into  the  light  of  commerce  and  civilisation, 
through  them  to  rise  to  a  yet  higher  culture  and  purer  morality. 
Each  age  has  its  own  degree  of  faith,  corresponding  to  the  scale  of 
advancement  to  which  it  has  attained  :  to  desire  an  increase  of  faith, 
is  to  seek  that  Avhich  lies  beyond  our  present  grasp  ;  to  grant  it, 
would  be  to  disturb  the  order  of  nature  and  providence..  Faith  must 
needs  be  the  spontaneous  outcome  of  the  human  soul :  it  is  the 
certainty  of  conviction,  the  consciousness  of  power,  the  limit  of  our 
own  abihty  to  will  and  do  ;  nothing  is  impossible  to  it  ;  it  is  a 
quality,  not  a  quantity  ;  to  crave  for  more,  is  as  though  we  were  to 
ask  that  the  brightest  light  should  be  altogether  dazzling,  for  two 
suns  instead  of  one,  that  we  may  scorch  ourselves  and  die.  No  :  we 
must  be  content  to  bide  our  time,  to  circle  in  our  little  round  of 
duty,  passing  through  our  appointed  probation  of  servitude,  and 
gradually  rising  to  a  higher  range  of  faith  and  action.  What  the 
disciples  Avanted  was  not  more  faith,  but  more  obedience.     Jesus  at 

i7LukcV,  s  once  turned  their  thoughts  in  that  direction.     '  But  who  is  there  of 


TART  II.]         .4    ,STUDY    OF    THE   FOUR    GOSPELS.  197 

you,  having  a  servant  (Gr.  bond-servant)  plowing  or  keeping  slieep, 
that  will  say  unto  him,  when  he  is  come  in  from  the  tield,  Come 
straightway^  and  sit  down  to  meat ;  and  will  not  rather  say  unto 
him,'  JVIake  ready  wherewith  I  may  sup,  and  gird  thyself,  and  serve 
me,  till  I  ha\-e  eaten  and  drunken  ;  and  afterward  thou  shalt  eat  and 
drink  ? '  Rules  of  rank  and  gradation  must  be  recognised  and 
adhered  to  ;  the  master  must  needs  take  precedence  of  the  servant. 
The  lesson  conveyed  by  the  parable  amounts  to  this  :  be  content  to 
work  in  your  allotted  sphere  of  duty  ;  do  not  expect  things  which 
are  above  you,  and  tod  high  for  you  :  seek  no  increase  of  faith  in 
the  hope  of  display  of  power  and  a  sudden  elevation  ;  that  which  is 
necessary  and  desirable  for  your  Master  is  equally  so  for  you,  and 
will  in  due  time  be  granted  you.  Be  content  to  do  his  bidding  and 
wait  his  time.  Your  position  and  prospects  are  your  sutticient  and 
only  recompense.  Aim  not  at  anything  beyond,  for  you  can  claim 
nothing  and  receive  nothing  more.  'Doth  he  thank  the  servant  iv  LnUe  9 
(Gr.  bond-servant)  because  he  did  the  things  which  were  com- 
manded ?  '  The  Revisers  and  Tischendorf  omit  the  words,  '  I  trow 
not.'  Alford  notes  that  they  are  '  omitted  by  several  ancient  author- 
ities,' but  no  indication  is  given  of  their  absence  from  any  of  the 
three  oldest  MSS.  In  such  a  spirit  let  the  disciples  simply  endeavour 
to  perform  their  duty.  Enough  for  them,  instead  of  asking  for 
higher  gifts  of  faith,  to  obey  every  command  laid  upon  them,  dis- 
ujissing  the  idea  of  any  works  of  supererogation,  and  indulging  no 
ambition  outside  their  proper  sphere  of  action.  '  Even  so  ye  also,  „  i» 
when  ye  shall  have  done  all  the  things  that  are  commanded  you,  say, 
We  are  unprofitable  servants  (Gr.  bond-servants)  ;  we  have  done 
that  which  it  was  our  duty  to  do.'  The  word  '  unprofitable '  needs 
cousideratifai.  Alford  says  :  '  In  the  case  of  me/i  this  is  different  ; 
a  good  servant  is  profitahh,  not  useless.''  But  to  represent  such 
servants  as  unprofitable  to  their  Master  is  contrary  to  the  parable, 
for  they  were  either  ploughing  or  keeping  slieep,  and  afterwards 
waiting  at  table  ;  and  in  another  parable  Jesus  describes  a  heavy 
punishment  to  be  due  to  an  unprofitable  servant.  Alford  quotes 
Bengel,  who  gets  over  the  difficulty  in  this  way  :  '  Wretched  is  he 
whom  the  Lord  calls  an  unprofitable  servant :  happy  he  who  calls 
himself  so.'  But  as  the  word  '  unprofitable  '  does  not  apply  to  the 
servants  in  respect  of  their  master,  it  must  in  respect  of  themselves  : 
their  labour  was  profitable  to  him,  being  justly  due  to  him  ;  it 
brought  no  profit  to  them,  they  being  bound  to  render  him  service. 
That  the  application  of  the  word  may  be  twofold  is  shown  in  the 
passage  :  '  That  they  may  do  this  with  joy,  and  not  with  grief  :  for  3  iieb.  iv 
this  were  unprofitable  for  you.'  It  might  have  stood  '  for  them '  : 
had  the  writer  omitted  the  last  two  words,  we  should  have  had  to 
judge  for  ourselves  whether  he  meant  'for  you'  or  'for  them,'  or 
'for  you  and  them.'  In  the  case  before  us,  the  context  sufficiently 
indicates  that  the  application  of  the  word  '  unprofitable  '  is  not  to 
the  master  but  to  the  servants  :  it  was  for  them  to  do  their  duty, 
without  expectation  of  profit  in  the  shape  of  thanks  or  special 
emoluments. 

In  recording  the  miracles  of  Jesus,  Luke  is  careful  to  supply  such 
particulars  of  time  and  place  as  were  within  his  knowledge.     The 


198  THE    KING    AND    THE    KINGDOM:  [part  ii. 

following  incident  ooeuiTed  in  a  journey  towards  Jeruealem,  some- 
where near  the  boundary-line  between  Galilee  and  Samaria.  '  And 
it  came  to  pass,  as  they  were  (or,  as  he  was)  on  the  way  to  Jerusalem, 
that  he  was  passing  through  the  midst  of  (or,  between)  Samaria  and 
Galilee.'  No  record  was  handed  down  of  the  exact  spot  :  the  '  certain 
village '  alluded  to  was  probably  too  little  known  to  have  been 
generally  recognised  by  name.  At  the  entrance  to  the  village  Jesus 
was  met  by  ten  lepers.  '  And  as  he  entered  into  a  certain  village, 
there  met  him  ten  men  that  were  lepers,  which  stood  afar  off.'  This 
isolation  from  others  was  obligatory  on  account  of  their  disease. 
The  expression  '  there  met  him  '  coupled  with  '  which  stood  afar  off,' 
may  be  taken  to  indicate  that  the  meeting  was  intentional  on  their 
part :  the  fame  of  Jesus  had  long  been  spread  abroad,  and  wherever 
he  went  with  his  disciples  the  news  of  his  coming  would  l)e  likely  to 
precede  him.  The  lepers  with  one  accord  besought  the  compassion 
of  the  great  Teacher  :  '  and  they  lifted  up  their  voices,  saying,  Jesus, 
Master,  have  mercy  on  us.'  Probably  Jesus  was  surrounded  by  a 
crowd  eager  to  see  and  hear  him,  outside  which  the  ten  lepers  were 
constrained  to  keep  at  some  considerable  distance,  endeavouring  to 
attract  his  attention  by  crying  aloud.  This  is  implied  by  the  words  : 
'  And  when  he  saw  them,  he  said  unto  them.'  It  is  not  said  that  he 
called  back  to  them  :  probably  one  of  the  disciples  conveyed  to  them 
his  message,  which  was  as  follows:  'Go  and  shew  yourselves  unto 
the  priests.'  They  were  justified  in  regaixling  that  as  a  favourable 
answer  :  the  only  object  of  undergoing  inspection  by  the  priest  was 
that  he  might  pronounce  the  leprosy  either  diminished  or  cured. 
They  went  as  Jesus  bade  them.  'And  it  came  to  pass,  as  they  went, 
they  were  cleansed.'  One  of  them,  when  he  became  conscious  of  the 
marvellous  change  which  had  come  over  him,  returned  to  Jesus,  pro- 
claiming loudly  as  he  went  his  thankfulness  to  ({od.  '  And  one  of 
them,  wlien  he  saw  that  he  was  healed,  turned  back,  with  a  loud 
voice  glorifying  God.'  The  uplifting  of  the  voice  was  no  needless 
demonstration  :  none  would  approach  a  leper,  and  to  shout  out,  'God 
be  thanked  for  my  cure  !  '  was  natural,  and,  under  the  circumstances, 
not  unbecoming.  On  reaching  the  presence  of  Jesus,  he  i'ell  pro- 
strate, pouring  forth  his  thanks.  '  And  he  fell  upon  his  face  at  his 
feet,  giving  him  thanks.'  The  nationality  of  the  man  was  discern- 
ible :  '  and  he  was  a  Samaritan.'  But  why,  Jesus  asked,  had  one 
only  out  of  ten  returned  ?  '  And  Jesus  answering  said.  Were  not  the 
ten  cleansed  ?  but  where  are  the  nine  ?  '  The  feeling  of  gratitude 
was  strongest  in  this  alien  Irom  the  commonwealth  of  Israel.  '  "Were 
there  (or.  There  were)  none  found  that  returned  to  give  glory  to  God, 
save  this  stranger  (or,  alien).'  This  may  be  accounted  for  on  the 
supposition  that  the  rest  were  Jews,  who  might  consider  it  enough  to 
comply  with  the  observance  laid  down  by  Moses  on  the  cleansing  of 
leprosy.  The  spirit  of  Jesus  appears  in  his  observation  :  he  valued 
much,  if  not  most,  the  immediate  recognition  of  a  benefit  ;  and  the 
acknowledgment  to  a  benefactor  was,  in  his  eyes,  consistent  with,  if 
not  equivalent  to,  a  thanksgiving  to  God.  Moreover,  he  would  not 
have  the  man  leaA-e  him  under  the  idea  that  only  to  God  alone,  or  to 
Jesus  in  conjunction  with  God,  the  cure  was  to  be  attributed.  The 
man's  faith  had  been  a  means  in  the  working  of  the  miracle.  '  And 
he  said  unto  him,  Arise,  and  go  thy  way  :   tJiy  faith  hath  made  thee 


I'ART  II.]         A    STUDY    OF    THE    FOUR    (lOSFFLS.  I'M 

whole  (or,  saved  thee).'  Youni;-  aud  Tischendorf  render  'saved  thee  ; ' 
the  '  Eughshmau's  ( Jreek  New  Testament,'  '  cured  thee.'  'I'he  expres- 
sion, however  transhited,  is  obviously  restricted  to  the  lieaUng  of  the 
leprosy.  Unfortunately,  tiie  training  and  traditions  of  theologians 
embolden  them  to  discover  meanings  which  are  not  disclosed  or 
suggested  by  the  narrative.  Dean  Alford's  comment  is  as  follows  : 
'  Bafh  made  thee  whole — in  a  higher  sense  than  the  mere  cleansing  of 
his  leprosy — theirs  was  merely  the  beholding  of  the  brazen  serpent 
with  the  outward  eyes, — but  his,  with  the  eye  of  inward  faith  ;  and 
this  faith  saved  him  ;■ — not  only  healed  his  body,  but  his  soul.' 
What  a  lamentable  overstepping  of  the  narrative  is  that  !  How  can 
the  simple  but  momeutous  truths  which  Jesus  sought  to  teach  be 
realised,  when  his  words  are  thus  stretched  beyond  their  natural  and 
proper  meaning  ? 

Jesus  was  once  questioned  by  the  Pharisees  as  to  the  time  when 
God's  kingdom,  which  we  know  had  been  proclaimed  since  the  days 
of  John  the  Baptist,  would  come.  Jesus  replied  that  no  outward 
signs  marked  its  advent.  '  Aud  being  asked  by  the  Pharisees,  when  i; 
the  kingdom  of  God  cometh,  he  answered  them  and  said.  The 
kingdom  of  God  cometh  not  Avith  observation.'  There  were  no 
external  symbols  of  that  rulership  ;  it  was  not  a  thing  to  be  localised 
and  gazed  at.  '  Neither  shall  they  say,  Lo,  here  !  or,  There  !  for  lo, 
the  kingdom  of  God  is  within  you  (or,  in  the  midst  of  you).'  The 
Revisers  have  retained  the  word  '  within,'  but  the  sense  of  the 
marginal  reading  is  expressly  given  by  Tischendorf 's  note :  'translate 
is  among  you'  Alford  says  :  '  The  misunderstanding  which  rendered 
these  words  within  ijou,  meaning  this  in  a  spiritual  sense,  in  your 
hearts,  should  have  been  prevented  by  reflecting  that  they  are 
addressed  to  the  Pharisees,  in  whose  hearts  it  certainly  was  not.' 
Young  renders  '  within,'  not  necessarily  intending  it  in  a  spiritual 
Hense.  Yet  his  translation  ot  '  kingdom  of  God  '  by  '  reign  of  God,' 
includes  that  sense  :  God's  '  reign  '  can  only  be  '  among  '  men  in 
proportion  to  their  obedience  to  his  will. 

What  follows  was  spoken  to  the  disciples,  not  to  the  Pharisees,  and 
must  not  be  assumed  to  be  a  continuation  of  the  same  subject, 
'  And  he  said  unto  the  disciples.  The  days  will  come,  when  ye  shall 
desire  to  see  one  of  the  days  of  the  Son  of  man,  and  ye  shall  not  see 
it.'  The  earthly  career  of  Jesus  must  draw  on  to  its  close  ;  and 
when  his  daily  round  of  teaching  and  healing  should  be  ended,  there 
would  spring  up  in  the  hearts  of  his  disciples ,  a  longing  for  his 
presence  and  instruction.  Then  rumours  of  his  return  to  earth  would 
be  promulgated,  some  saying  he  w^ould  be  found  in  one  place,  some 
in  another.  AH  such  visionary  expectations  must  be  set  aside. 
'And  they  shall  say  to  you,  Lo,  there  !  Lo,  here  !  go  not  away,  nor 
follow  after  them.''  Tischendorf  renders  :  '  Go  not  away  and  pursue 
not.'  Such  reports  would  not  be  worth  their  heeding  and  investiga- 
ting. When  the  day  of  his  manifestation  should  come,  there  would 
be  no  need  to  seek  him  in  a  particular  spot  :  the  whole  world  would 
know  of  his  coming,  which  would  be  as  open  and  unmistakable  as 
the  lightning  which  flashes  at  opposite  points  of  the  horizon.  '  For 
as  the  lightning,  when  it  lighteneth  out  of  the  one  part  under  the 
heaven,  shineth  nnto  the  other  part  under  the  heaven  ;  so  shall  the 


200  THE    KING    AND    THE    KINGDOM:  [pakt  ii. 

Son  of  man  be  in  his  day.'  The  Eevisers  note  that  '  Some  ancient 
authorities  omit  in  h  is  day.''  Of  the  three  oldest  MSS.  the  Vatican  only 
omits  those  words  ;  Tischendorf  retains  them.  But  before  the  day 
of  his  manifestation,  Jesus  must  pass  through  much  suffering  and  be 

17  Luke  -25  rejected  by  his  contemporaries.  '  But  first  must  he  suffer  many 
things  and  be  rejected  of  this  generation.'  Foreseeing  all  that,  he 
looked  far  beyond,  even  to  a  time  when  he  would  be  the  supreme 
arbiter  of  the  world's  destiny.    Jesus  had  previously  foretold  as  much, 

33  Mat.  41  when  expounding  his  parable  of  the  tares  of  the  held.  '  So  shall  it 
be  in  the  consummation  of  the  age.  The  Son  of  man  shall  send 
forth  his  angels,  and  they  shall  gather  out  of  his  kingdom  all  things 
that  cause  stumbling,  and  them  that  do  iniquity.'  Meantime  all  the 
affairs  of  the  world  are  left  to  go  on  after  their  accustomed  fashion, 

17  (.iikf  2(1-  the  long-deferred  crisis  coming  suddenly  at  its  appointed  time.  '  And 
as  it  came  to  pass  in  the  days  of  Xoah,  even  so  shall  it  be  also  in  the 
days  of  the  Son  of  man.  They  ate,  they  drank,  they  married,  they 
were  given  in  marriage,  until  the  day  that  JSToah  entered  into  the  ark, 
and  the  flood  came,  and  destroyed  them  all.  Likewise  even  as  it 
came  to  pass  in  the  days  of  Lot  ;  they  ate,  they  drank,  they  bought, 
they  sold,  they  planted,  they  builded  ;  but  in  the  day  that  Lot  went 
out  from  Sodom  it  rained  fire  and  brimstone  from  heaven,  and 
destroyed  them  all.'  The  rendering  of  Tischendorf,  Young,  and  the 
'  Englishman's  Greek  New  Testament,'  '  they  were  eating,  they  were 
drinking,'  &c.,  is  preferable.  These  two  illustrations  point  to  some 
catastrophe,  a  universal  judgment,  a  special  and  irresistible  inter- 
„  so  ference  with  the  course  of  nature  :  '  after  the  same  manner  shall  it 
be  in  the  day  that  the  Sou  of  man  is  revealed.'  So  sudden  will  be 
the  emergency  that  not  an  instant  must  be  lost  by  those  who  would 
„  31,3-2  escape  destruction.  '  In  that  day,  he  which  shall  be  on  the  housetop, 
and  his  goods  in  the  house,  let  him  not  go  down  to  take  them  away  : 
and  let  him  that  is  in  the  field  likewise  not  return  back.  Remember 
Lot's  Avife.'  iVs  this  represents  imminent  danger  to  hfe,  the  signifi- 
cance of  the  following  verse  is  not  obvious,  and  seems  at  first  sight 
,,  3:;  contradictory.  '  Whosoever  shall  seek  to  gain  his  life  (or,  soul)  shall 
lose  it  :  but  whosoever  shall  lose  Jns  life  (or,  soul)  shall  preserve  it 
(Gr.  save  it  alive).'  Alford  translates  the  verse  thus  :  'Whosoever 
shall  have  sought  his  life  shall  lose  it :  and  whosoever  shall  have  lost 
it  shall  quicken  it ; '  and  he  adds  the  note  :  '  ivliosoever  shall  have 
sought,  i.e.  during  his  preceding  life,  shall  lose  it  then  :  whosoerer  shall 
have  lost  it,  by  self-sacrifice  during  this  life,  shall  quicken  it  then '  ; 
and  he  quotes  AVordsworth  as  follows  :  '  The  verb  in  the  original  is  an 
expressive  word,  derived  from  animal  parturition,  bringing  forth  to 
air  and  life  what  was  before  concealed  in  the  womb.'  Tischendorf's 
rendering  is  :  '  Whosoever  shall  seek  to  possess  his  life,  will  lose  it ; 
and  whosoever  shall  lose  it  will  preserve  it '  ;  Youug  :  '  Whoever 
may  seek  to  save  his  life,  shall  lose  it ;  and  whoever  may  lose  his  life, 
shall  preserve  it.'  ISTothing  can  ward  off  death,  and  nothing  can 
hinder  life  after  death.  The  axiom  was  one  which  Jesus  impressed 
on  his  disciples  at  various  times,  and  which  he  sought  to  make  them 
realise  as  their  rule  of  life  and  action.  And  the  coming  of  the  Son 
of  man  will  be  in  connection  with  the  final  change  and  crisis  of  our 
present  existence,  and  will  involve  a  process  of  selection  and  separa- 
tion altogether  irrespective  of  worldly  conditions  and  surroundings. 


PAKT  II.  1         .4    16TUDY    OF    THE   FOUR    GOSFFLS.  201 

'  I  say  unto  you,  In  that  nio;ht  there  shall  be  two  men  in  one  hed,  the  n  LuUp  ^4^, 
one  shall  be  taken,  and  the  other  shall  be  left.     There  shall  be  two  ^^ 

women  grinding  together  ;  the  one  shall  be  taken,  and  the  other 
shall  be" left.'     The  Revisers,  following  the  three  oldest  ]\ISS.,  have 
omitted   the   following   verse :    '  There    shall   be    two   men   in   the       __     3,; 
field  ;  the  one  shall  be  taken,  and  the  other  shall  be  left.'     Alford 
suggests  that '  it  was  probably  inserted  here  from  Matt.  xxiv.  40.' 

There  has  been  nothing  in  the  world's  history  answering  to  this 
description  of  the  coming  of  the  Son  of  man.  It  represents  not  only 
a  general,  overwiielming  catastrophe,  but  simultaneously  or  antece- 
dently the  deliverance  of  certain  persons.  Jesus  dwells  especially  on 
this  last  circumstance,  telling  us  that  the  discrimination  of  character 
will  be  so  close  and  unerring  that  men  and  Avomen  living,  resting, 
working  together  will  be  separated  from  each  other,  some  taken  from 
the  evil  to  come  and  others  left  to  meet  their  doom.  It  is  the  stor}' 
of  Dives  and  Lazarus  in  another  form,  the  same  truth,  but  without  a 
metaphor,  as  is  revealed  in  the  parables  of  the  tares  of  the  field  and 
the  drag-net,  both  of  which  had  reference  to  'the  consummation  of  13  Mat.  40, 
the  age.'  The  disciples  asked  Jesus  where  this  stupendous  manifesta-  ■*^'  '*'*'  *'' 
tion  of  the  Son  of  man  was  destined  to  take  ]Dlace.  '  And  they  ir  Liii<e  37 
answering  say  unto  him,  AVhere,  Lord  (Sir — Young)  ?'  The  reply  of 
Jesus  was  metaphorical:  'And  he  said  unto  them,  Where  the  body  „  37 
'is,  thither  will  the  eagles  (or,  vultures)  also  be  gathered  together.' 
Divine  judgment  will  be  executed,  not  with  reference  to  particular 
localities,  l)ut  as  it  may  be  necessitated  by  the  course  of  events  :  as 
the  vultures  swoop  to  their  prey,  attracted  thither  by  the  miasma  of 
the  carcase,  so  the  advent  of  the  Son  of  man,  and  the  work  of  separa- 
tion assigned  to  his  messengers,  will  come  to  pass  where  and  when 
the  state  of  society  may  demand  such  an  interference. 

Of  the  parable  of  the  unjust  judge  which  immediately  follows, 
Alford  says  :  '  This  parable,  though  not  perhaps  spoken  in  immediate 
unbroken  sequence  after  the  last  discourse,  evidently  arose  out  of  it.' 
The  opening  words  imply,  at  least,  that  it  was  spoken  to  the  same 
persons  :  '  And  he  spake  a  parable  unto  them,'  that  is,  to  '  the  dis-  is  Luke  i 
ciples  '  (see  verse  22  of  the  last  chapter)  :  '  to  the  end  that  they  ought  ^  ^  ■> 
always  to  pray,  and  not  to  faint,  saying,  There  was  in  a  city  a  judge, 
which  feared  not  (lod,  and  regarded  not  man.'  Young  renders  lite- 
rally :  'A  certain  judge  was  in  a  certain  city,  God  not  fearing,  and 
man  not  regarding.'  A  man  without  conscience  and  without  prin- 
ciple, setting  at  naught  all  laws,  divine  and  human.  To  his  judgment 
seat  there  came  a  lonely,  persecuted  woman.  '  And  there  was  a  v/idow  „  .3 
in  that  city,  and  she  came  oft  unto  him,  saying.  Avenge  me  (or,  do 
me  justice)  of  mine  adversary.'  That,  for  some  time,  he  refused  to 
do  ;  but,  later  on,  he  altered  his  mind,  and  resolved  to  do  her  justice. 
Not  willingly,  however,  nor  from  any  sense  of  rectitude,  but  simply 
to  save  himself  the  annoyance  caused  by  her  repeated  applications. 
'And  he  would  not  for  a  while  :  but  afterward  he  said  within  him-  „  4,,'-. 
self.  Though  I  fear  not  God,  nor  regard  man,  yet  because  this  widow 
troubleth  me,  I  will  avenge  her,  lest  she  wear  me  out  (Gr.  bruise  me) 
by  her  continual  coming.'  Persistent  entreaty  was  a  sufficient  lever 
wherewith  to  overcome  his  conscienceless  immol)ility.  ()n  that  point 
of  the  parable  Jesus  seized,  emphasising  the  lesson  it  conveyed.   'And       ,,     c 


202  THE    KING    AND    THE   KINGDOM:  [part  ii. 

the  Lord  said,  Hear  Avhat  the  unrighteous  judge  (Gr.  the  judge  of 
unrighteousness)  saith.'  If  he  was  moved  by  the  widow's  importunity 
to  vindicate  her  cause,  how  much  more  will  God  exercise  his  judicial 
power  in  favour  of  those  whom  he  has  chosen  out  of  the  world,  and 
Avliose  cry,  under  the  wrongs  and  persecutions  of   the  world,  sounds 

IS  Luke  7  unceasingly  in  his  ears  ?  '  And  shall  not  God  avenge  his  elect,  which 
cry  to  him  day  and  night,  and  he  is  longsuffering  over  them  ? '  The 
Authorised  Version  has  :  '  though  he  bear  long  with  them,'  but  the 
wording  of  the  Revisers  agrees  with  Tischendorf  and  Alford.  The 
latter  explains  :  '  He  is  long-suffering  to  those  w^ho  oppose  them  ; ' 
but  surely  the  Avord  '  them  '  must  refer  back  to  the  elect.     So  Peter 

3  ii.  Pet.  9  applied  the  term  :  '  long-suffering  to  you-ward.'  The  word  '  though,' 
in  the  Authorised  Version,  is  not  in  the  original.  The  long-suffering 
or  patience  of  God  to  the  cry  of  his  chosen^  is  put  in  contrast  with 
the  impatience  of  the  unjust  judge  to  the  complaint  of  the  widow  ; 
the  divine  long-suffering  is  in  the  direction  of  a  Avilling,  continuous 
attention,  which  was  the  quality  lackiug  in  the  unjust  judge,  who 
would  not  suffer   the  woman's  importunity.     The  reverse  of  that 

18  Luke  s  holds  good  witli  respect  to  God  and  his  elect  :  '  I  say  unto  you,  that 
he  will  avenge  them  speedily.'  From  this  it  follows  that  the  drift  of 
the  parable,  that  '  they  ought  always  to  pray  and  not  to  faint,'  is  not 
to  be  understood  as  referring  to  the  reiteration  of  prayer,  for  there  can 
be  no  need  of  that  to  One  who  answers  '  speedily.'  The  expression, 
'  which  cry  to  him  day  and  night,'  denotes  the  incessant  wrong-doing 
which  is  committed  in  the  world,  so  that  an  unbroken  chorus  of  sup- 
plication is  ever  rising  to  God  in  appeal  against  man's  injustice. 
Generation  after  generation,  by  day  and  night,  that  goes  on  :  yet 

z  ii.  Pet.  0     '  the  Lord  is  not  slack  concerning  his  promise  ; '  the  warning  of  Jesus 

j  Mat.  25  never  ceases  to  ajaply  :  '  Agree  with  thine  adversary  quickly,  whiles 
thou  art  with  him  ni  the  way  ;  lest  haply  the  adversary  deliver  thcc 
to  the  judge.'  That  will  be  the  lot  of  every  oppressor.  Our  earthly 
life  soon  ends,  and  how  speedily  after  death  come  judgment  and  the 
rectification,  even  to  reversal,  of  this  world's  inequalities,  let  the 
parable  of  the  rich  man  and  Lazarus, — whose  name  signifies  '  God  is 
my  help,' — testify.  All  this,  howevei-,  is  a  matter  of  faith,  unbacked 
by  any  evidence  :  the  '  I  say  unto  you  '  of  Jesus  is  the  only  basis  for 
our  hope  to  rest  upon.  And  as  time  goes  on,  century  after  century 
passing  without  any  visible  divine  interference,  the  anticipation  of  a 

3ii.  Pet.  4  judgment  to  come  grows  fainter,  so  that  even  '  in  the  last  days '  the 
question  will  be  asked,  '  Where  is  the  promise  of  his  coming  ?  for, 
from  the  day  that  the  fathers  fell  asleep,  all  things  continue  as  they 
were  from  the  beginning  of  the  creation.'     Foreseeing  this,  Jesus 

IS  Luke  s  added  :  '  Howbeit,  when  the  Son  of  man  eometh,  shall  he  find  faith 
(or,  the  faith)  on  the  earth  ?  '  Young.  Tischendorf,  and  Alford 
render  '  the  faith,'  the  latter  considering  it  to  1  te  *  faith  in  reference  to 
the  object  of  t/ie  2Jarat)Ie.' 

Although  the  Revisers  have  not  dropped  from  verses  3,  5,  7,  aud  8 
the  word  '  avenge,'  they  have  given  as  its  equivalent,  '  do  me  justice 
of.'  Alford  suggests,  '  deliver  me  from  ; '  A'oung  has  '  do  me  justice  ' 
.  .  '  do  her  justice '  .  .  '  execute  the  justice  '  ;  Luther  uses  in  each 
instance  the  word  '  retten,'  '  save.'  The  alteration  is  important, 
because  in  modern  language  the  words  '  avenge '  and  '  vengeance ' 
have  come  to  signify  more  than  impartial  'justice,'  and  convey  the 


PAKT  II. J         ,1    STUDY    OF    THE    iOUli    CWSFMLS.  203 

idea  either  of  actual  Tiiulictiveness  or  of  piinishnient  inflicted  with 
c'xtremest  rio:our.  It  is  clear  that  in  this  parable  the  term  '  aven,t>-e ' 
applies  rather  to  the  benefit  conferred  on  the  oppressed  tlian  to  any 
penalty  inflicted  upon  the  oppressor  ;  and  throughout  the  Scriptures 
by  the  words  'avenge,  avenger,  vengeance,'  should  be  understood 
simply  the  execution  of  '  justice.'  In  that,  its  true  sense,  the  doctrine 
of  diviue  '  vengeance  '  is  a  grand,  ennobling,  consolatory  truth.  Thus 
viewed,  ])assages  in  the  I'salms  aud  elsewhere,  which  otherwise  must 
be  regarded  as  revolting  or  iuexplicable,  assume  soleumity  and 
pathos.  Vengeance  or  avengement  must  uever  be  dissociated  from  or 
go  beyond  the  idea  of  justice  ;  retaliation  is  not  synonymous  with 
vindicti\-eness.  On  '  the  avenger  of  blood '  in  Israel  devolved  the 
duty  of  slayiug  every  murderer,  without  trial,  without  delay  ;  he  was 
the  exponent  of  the  divine  law,  '  AYhoso  sheddeth  man's  blood,  by  i»  O''".  i; 
man  shall  his  blood  be  shed.'  Flight  to  one  of  the  cities  of  refuge 
was  the  only  way  of  avoiding  immediate  destruction,  aud  of  claiming 
the  right  of  trial  ;  and  even  if  the  charge  were  reduced  to  man- 
slaughter, the  manslayer  was  not  safe  from  the  avenger  outside  the 
city  of  refuge.  Only  the  avenger  was  justified  in  executing  vengeance,  -J  Xum. 
and  he  was  commissioned  to  act  unhesitatingly,  unvaryingly,  like  a 
passionless  law  of  nature,  as  surely,  as  s^^■ift^y,  as  remorselessly,  on 
meeting  a  murderer,  as  a  flame  of  fire  consumes  the  stubble  within 
its  reach.  Consider  the  effect  which  such  an  office,  always  existing 
among  the  Israelites,  must  have  had  on  the  popular  conception  :  the 
idea  of  '  vengeance '  was  connected  with  the  exercise  of  a  strictly 
judicial  function,  an  unsparing  severity  against  bloodguiltiness,  estab- 
lished for  the  jirotection  of  the  community.  '  Vengeance '  was  declared 
to  be  an  attribute  of  the  (lod  of  Israel,  and  is  spoken  of  in  connection 
with  his  prerogative  of  supreme  judgment.  '  Vengeance  is  mine,  and  3:;  i)<mi.  so 
recompence.' 

'  0  Lord,  thou  God  to  whom  vengeance  belongeth,  m  Ps.  i-s 

Thou  God  to  whom  vengeance  belongeth,  shine  forth. 
Lift  up  thyself,  thou  judge  of  the  earth  : 
Kender  to  the  proud  ///cir  desert. 
Lord,  how  long  shall  the  wicked, 
How  long  shall  the  wicked  triumph  ? ' 

Not  cruelty,  but  mercy,  and  a  sublime  love  of  justice,  were  in  the 
soul  of  David  when  he  sang  : 
'  The  righteous  shall  rejoice  when  he  seeth  the  vengeance  :  asPsa.  lu,  n 

He  shall  wash  his  feet  in  the  blood  of  the  wicked. 

So  that  men  shall  say,  A^erily  there  is  a  reward  for  the  righteous  : 

Verily  there  is  a  God  that  judgeth  in  the  earth.' 

In  the  mind  of  Paul  also  vengeance  and  judgment  seem  to  have 
been  synonymous,  for  he  asks  :  '  Is  God  unrighteous  who  taketh  ven-  s  Rom.  5,  r. 
geance  ?  '  and  answers  :  '  (}od  forbid  :  for  then  how  shall  God  judge 
the  world  ? ' 

Luke  next  records  another  parable,  which  was  not  addressed  to  the 
disciples,  but  to  certain  persons  who  showed  a  spirit  of  self-laudation, 
and  at  the  same  time  held  others  in  contempt.  '  Aud  he  spake  also  is  lhi<c  '.i 
this  parable  unto  certain  which  trusted  in  themselves  that  they  were 
righteous,  and  set  all  others  (Gr.  the  rest)  at  nought.'  Possibly  some 
unrecorded  incident  revealed  that  trait  of  character  and  called  forth 


204  THE    KING    AND    THE   KINGDOM:  [part  it. 

this  reproof  from  Jesus.  Young's  rendering  points  that  way  :  '  And 
he  spake  also  to  certain  who  Avere  trusting  iu  themselves  that  they 
were  righteous,  and  despising  the  rest,  this  simile.'  Tischendorf, 
however,  renders  :  '  certain  who  trust  in  themselves  that  they  are 
righteous,  and  set  at  nought  the  rest.'  Alford  also  adopts  that 
rendering.  Jesus  describes  two  men,  one  at  the  top,  the  other  at  the 
IS  Luke  10  bottom  of  the  social  scale,  both  going  to  pray  in  the  temple.  '  Two 
men  went  up  into  the  temple  to  pray  ;  the  one  a  Pharisee,  and  the 
other  a  publican.'     The  Authorised  and  Revised  Versions  continue  : 

,,  u  '  The  Pharisee  stood  and  prayed  thus  with  himself.'  The  words 
'with  himself  are  omitted  by  Tischendorf,  and  by  Young  who 
renders  :  '  The  Pharisee  having  stationed  himself,  thus  prayed  : '  the 
recognized  formality  of  posture  was  punctiliously  observed.  And  his 
prayer  turns  out  to  be  a  thanksgiving — on  behalf  of  himself,  all  about 

„  11  himself,  his  integrity,  his  morality.  '  Clod,  I  thank  thee,  that  I  am 
not  as  the  rest  of  men,  extortioners,  unjust,  adulterers.'  Ah  !  how 
thankful  he  ought  to  be,  not  only  on  account  of  his  freedom  from 
such  gross  immoralities,  but  for  his  honourable  position  in  society  : 
how  different  his  lot  from  that  of  this  tax-gatherer,  whose  calling  was 

„  n  deemed,  if  not  infamous,  certainly  nob  respectable  ;  so  he  adds  :  '  or 
even  as  this  publican.'  What  a  privilege  to  have  a  strict  sense  of 
religious  duty,  involving  constant,  voluntary  self-denial  in  food  and 

„  12  money  !  '  I  fast  twice  in  the  week  ;  I  give  tithes  of  all  that  I  get,' 
The  Eevisers  have  altered  '  possess '  to  '  get ; '  Tischendorf  and 
Alford  render  the  word  'acquire;'  the  'Englishman's  Greek  New 
Testament '  '  gain.'  He  gave  a  tenth  part  of  his  income.  The  heart 
of  the  Pharisee  stands  revealed  to  us  :  nothing  he  said  can  be 
assumed  to  be  hypocritical  or  untrue.  He  is  represented  as  simply 
trusting  in  himself  that  he  was  righteous,  and  looking  down  upon  the 
publican.  The  tax-gatherer  was  humble  in  demeanour,  and  would 
not  even  lift  his  eyes  heaven wai'ds,  a  custom  which  we  know  that 

„  13  Jesus  himself  observed  in  prayer.  '  But  the  publican,  standing  afar 
off,  would  nob  lift  up  so  much  as  his  eyes  unto  heaven.'  That  his 
soul  was  filled  with  compunction  was  evident  from  his  gesture,  his 
intensity  of  self-reproach  impelling  him  to  smite  his  breast,  as  he 

„  i:^  confessed  his  sinfulness  and  craved  forgiveness  :  '  but  smote  his  breast, 
saying,  God,  be  merciful  (or,  be  propitiated)  to  me  a  (or,  the)  sinner.' 
What  a  contrast  between  these  two  men,  the  one  esteeming  himself 
as  best  among  the  best,  the  other  as  worst  among  the  worst ;  the  one 
full  of  thankful  self-congratulation,  airing  his  virtuousness  of  heart 
and  life  in  the  sight  of  heaven,  the  other  a  self-accused  criminal, 
anxious  only  to  deprecate  the  wrath  of  God  due  to  his  misdeeds  !  As 
they  left  the  house  of  prayer  for  their  respective  homes,  which  of  the 

„  i-t  two  was  the  more  acceptable  in  the  sight  of  God  ?  Jesus  tells  us  :  I  say 
unto  you.  This  man  went  down  to  his  house  justilied  rather  than  the 

,,     14    other.'     And  this  by  the  working  of  an  intlexil)]e  law  :  '  For  every 

one  that  exalteth  himself  shall  be  humbled,  but  he  that  humbleth 

himself  shall  be  exalted.'    That  is  the  point  of  the  parable  ;  the  one 

lesson  which  Jesus  bids  us  draw  from  it.     He  impressed  this  truth  on 

•2".  Mat.  11,  his  disciples  on  two  other  occasions  also.     '  But  he  that  is  greatest 

^'  among  you  shall  be  your  servant.     And  whosoever  shall  exalt  himself 

shall   be   humbled  ;  and  whosoever  shall   humble   himself  shall   be 

41  Luke  10,  exalted,'     Again  :  '  Then  shalt  thou  have  glory  iu  the  presence  of  all 

XI 


PART  II.]         A    STUDY    OF    THE    FOUR    GOSPELS.  205 

that  sit  at  meat  with  thee.  For  every  one  that  exaltcth  liiniself  shall 
be  humbled ;  and  he  that  humbleth  himself  shall  be  exalted.' 
The  three  instances  iu  which  Jesus  enforced  this  arg-umcnt  applied 
to  matters  of  social  conduct  and  demeanour  :  he  would  have  us 
take  it  as  a  rule  of  life,  with  respect  to  claims  of  j)recedence  in 
society  and  in  the  church.  The  apostle  Paul  laid  hold  upon  this 
truth,  and  acted  iu  accordance  with  it :  '  For  we  are  not  bold  to  lo  u.  cr.  i-. 
number  or  compare  ourselves  with  certain  of  them  that  commend 
themselves  ;  but  they  themselves,  measurino-  themselves  by  them- 
selves, and  comparing  themselves  with  themselves,  are  without  under- 
standing.' Accepting  this  as  sound  philosophy  and  a  doctrine  of 
Christian  ethics,  surely  that  educational  system  must  be  unwise  and 
wrong,  which  is  based  upon  emulation,  the  standard  of  a  boy's  pro- 
gress being  his  position  in  a  class,  claims  to  distinction  arising  out  of 
a  comparison  of  the  scholars  with  each  other,  so  that  they  are  taught 
to  be  'measuring  themselves  by  themselves,  and  comparing  them- 
selves with  themselves.'  '  Every  one  when  he  is  perfected  shall  be  '>  L.-.ko  40 
as  his  teacher.'  AVhatever  is  thoroughly  learnt  by  all  ceases  to  be  a 
subject  of  competitive  examination  :  comparison  in  degrees  of  attain- 
ment is  but  the  badge  of  imperfection  ;  the  custom  of  prize-giving 
and  of  '  honours '  in  our  educational  system  is  an  evidence  either  of 
the  fact  that  the  effort  to  teach  thoroughly  has  not  been  successful 
with  the  majority,  or  that  the  scholars  generally  have  been  exercised 
beyond  their  mental  powers.  Distinctions  granted  to  the  few  are,  in 
truth,  reproaches  chargeable  against  the  teacher  for  his  failure  with 
the  many.  A  wiser  method  should  be  adopted.  Instead  of  the 
artificial  system  of  prize-giving,  and  the  detestable  custom  of  sending 
periodical  '  reports,'  with  the  names  and  '  marks '  of  respective 
scholars,  which  too  much  resembles  an  attempt  to  shift  the  responsi- 
bility from  the  schoolmaster  upon  the  parents,  who  desire  that  their 
children  may  be  taught,  not  simply  classified  as  more  or  less  un- 
successful scholars,  why  should  not  certificates  of  competency  be 
issued  ?  That  could  easily  be  arranged  for  all  subjects  :  certificates, 
for  instance,  of  having  become  perfect  in  the  first  four  rules  of 
arithmetic,  iu  practice,  in  simple  and  compound  proportion,  in 
decimals  ;  certificates  of  thorough  attainment  in  specific  o-rades  of 
geometry,  of  languages,  grammatically,  by  translation,  and  collo- 
quially, of  geography,  of  writing  and  drawing  in  their  several  stages, 
and  so  on.  Such  certificates  would  be  reliable  evidences  of  progress, 
and  would  obviate  the  objectionable  system  of  '  crammin<>- '  for 
examinations.  Such  a  plan  has  been  adopted  with  satisftictory  results 
by  Mr.  Isaac  Pitman.  He  issues  certificates  for  phonography  :  that 
a  speed  of  so  many  words  per  minute  has  been  attained.  Every 
student  should  perform  his  work  for  the  work's  sake,  apart  from  the 
stimulus  and  strain  of  competition.  Why  should  he  be  induced  to 
compare  himself  with  his  fellows,  and  measure  his  own  attainments 
by  those  of  others  ?  So  far  as  the  spirit  of  emulation  is  instinctive 
and  spontaneous,  it  will  find  its  natural  outcome  in  games  of  strength 
and  skill,  which  are  undertaken  for  the  play's  sake,  just  as  studies 
should  be  for  the  work's  sake.  There  is  no  need  to  encourage  in  the 
young  a  yearning  for  distinction  and  pre-eminence.  Jesus  detected 
too  much  of  such  a  spirit  in  his  days,  and  he  counsels  us  to  hold 
aloof  from  it,  to  act  upon  the  contrary  princii)le,  to  accept  as  a  truth 


20G  •  THE   KING    AND    THE    KINGDOM:  [part  ii. 

and  life-maxim  his  assurance  :  '  Every  one  that  exaltetli  himself  shall 
be  humbled,  but  he  that  humbleth  himself  shall  be  exalted.' 

Luke's  narrative  novs^  again  falls  in  with  Matthew  and  Mark.  The 
10  Mat.  13  three  evangelists  record  the  bringing  of  infants  to  Jesus.  '  Then 
were  there  brought  unto  him  little  children,  that  he  should  lay  his 
hands  on  tliem,  and  pray.'  Luke  says  nothing  about  praying,  but 
i!s  Luke  15  uses  a  word  which  denotes  the  earliest  age.  '  And  they  brought  unto 
10  Mark  13  him  also  their  babes,  that  he  should  touch  them.'  Mark  :  'And  they 
brought  unto  him  little  children,  that  he  should  touch  them.' 
Matthew  and  Mark  state  :  '  and  the  disciples  rebuked  them.'  Luke 
says  :  '  But  when  the  disciples  saw  it,  they  rebuked  them.'  The 
Eevisers  have  substituted  in  Mark  '  them  '  for  '  those  that  brought 
them,''  on  the  authority  of  the  two  oldest  MS8.  The  rebuke  could 
scarcely  fail  to  be  reflected  upon  such  of  the  children  as  were  old 
enough  to  understand  the  prohibition.  Possibly  it  seemed  to  the 
disciples  derogatory  to  the  character  and  office  of  their  Teacher  that 
he  should  be  importuned  in  this  way  :  that  his  touch,  Avhich  had  so 
constantly  worked  miracles  of  healing  should  be  sought  when  no 
infirmity  re(|uired  it,  perchance  even  with  a  superstitious  notion.  But 
^^  the  interference  of  the  disciples  was  hotly  resented  by  Jesus.  'But 
when  Jesus  saw  it,  he  was  moved  with  indignation.'  Luke  represents 
him  as  summoning  the  disciples  to  give  them  his  opinion  of  the 
Ls  Luke  10  matter.  '  But  Jesus  called  them  unto  him,  saying,  Suffer  the  little 
children  to  come  unto  me,  and  forbid  them  not :  for  of  such  is  the 
10  Mark  14  kingdoiii  of  God.'  Mark  :  '  and  said  unto  them,  SuflFer  the  little 
children  to  come  unto  me  ;  forbid  them  not  :  for  of  such  is  the 
v.>  Mat.  14  kingdom  of  God.'  Matthew  :  '  But  Jesus  said,  Suffer  the  little 
children,  and  forbid  them  not,  to  come  unto  me  :  for  of  such  is  the 
kingdom  of  heaven.'  In  Matthew  and  Luke  the  Authorised  Version 
omits  the  word  '  the '  before  '  little  children,'  thereby  making  the 
words  apply  generally  ;  but  Tischendorf,  Young  and  Alford  agree 
with  the  Revisers.  Tischendorf  in  the  three  places  uses  the  expression  : 
'  Leave  the  little  children  to  come  nnto  me  : '  the  force  is  on  the  word 
'  come  ; '  the  children,  invited  by  the  gesture  of  Jesus,  were  to  be  left 
free  to  follow  their  natural  impulse,  no  man  forbidding  them.  The 
saying  of  Jesus  must  not  be  stretched  beyond  the  occasion,  as  though 
it  applied  in  any  way,  except  by  analogy,  to  the  question  of  infant 
baptism.  The  calling  together  of  the  disciples  indicated  a  purpose  of 
stating  an  important  truth,  and  the  lesson  conveyed  by  Jesus  was  in 
the  opposite  direction  :  not  that  children  were  to  be  admitted  to  tlie 
rite  of  baptism,  not  that  they  needed  to  be  brought  into  the  kingdom 
of  heaven,  but  that  their  characteristic  innocency  and  helplessness 
were  the  pattern  of  the  heavenly  disposition  :  '  for  of  such  is  the  king- 
dom of  heaven.'  Listead  of  depreciating  children,  Jesus  would  have 
his  disciples  imitate  them.  God's  kingdom  was  not  for  the  indepen- 
dent and  self-confident ;  men  must  receive  it  in  a  childlike  spirit, 
put  away  the  sense  of  self-confidence  and  self-esteem,  unlearn  their 
previous  teaching,  begin  life  afresh,  starting  with  new  maxims,  new 
10  Mark  15  uims,  uew  hopcs  :  '  Verily  I  say  unto  you,  Whosoever  shall  not  receive 
IS  Luke  IT  the  kingdom  of  God  as  a  little  child,  he  shall  in  no  wise  enter  therein.' 
Young  renders,  '  the  reign  of  God  : '  what  is  that  but  implicit  sub- 
mission to  the  divine  will  ?  Jesus  was  the  guide  to  that  new  state  of 


PART  II.]         A    STUDY    OF    THE    FOUR    GOSPELS.  207 

beiiiii-,  the  teaclier  of  tlie   licavonly  doctrine,  tlie  ali)habet  of  which 

(ujiild  only  l)e  acquired  by  cliildlike  docih'ty.     Once  within  the  kin<>'- 

dom,  heavenly  lessons  would  he  learned,  si)iritual  jiowers  unfolded, 

.1  nobler  career  of  duty  o|)ened  out,  the  hi<;her  life  inaugurated.     But 

only  throuo'h  humility,  passive,  unquestionini^-,  reverential  submission 

to  "the  heaven-sent  doctrine,  could  entrance  be   <,'ained.     Jesus  had 

previously  taught  that  truth,  enforcin<>-  it  by  callin^t^'to  himself  a  httle 

child,  and  assuring  his  disciples,  '  Except  ye  turn,  and  become  as  is  Mat.  2, 3 

little  children,  ye  shall  in  no  wise  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven.' 

Xo  wonder  his  indignation  was  roused,  when  he  found  them  rebuking 

and  driving  away  children  from  his  presence.     He  scrupled  not  to 

comply  witli  the  wish  of  those  who  brought  them,  embracing  the 

little  ones,  blessing  them,  laying  his  hands  on  each.     '  And  he  took  10  Mark  ic. 

them  in  his  arms,  and  blessed  them,  laying  his  hands  upon  them.' 

Matthew  explains  that  it  was  a  parting  benediction,  the  last  act  of 

Jesus  in  the  place  where  he  had  been  teaching.     '  And  he  laid  his  li'  Mat.  15 

hands  on  them,  and  departed  thence.' 

The  compilers  of  the  '  Ministration  of  Public  Baptism  of  Infants 
to  be  used  in  the  Church,'  availed  themselves  of  this  incident  with 
consummate  judgment  and  tact.  After  reading  the  account  given 
by  Mark,  the  Minister  comments  as  follows:  '  Beloved,  ye  hear  in 
tins  Gospel  the  words  of  our  Saviour  Christ,  that  he  commanded  the 
children  to  be  brought  unto  him  ;  how  he  blamed  those  that  would 
have  kept  them  from  him  ;  how  he  exhorteth  all  men  to  follow  their 
innocency.  Ye  perceive  hoAv  by  his  outward  gesture  and  deed  he 
declared  his  good-will  toward  them  ;  for  he  embraced  them  in  his 
arms,  he  laid  his  hands  upon  them,  and  blessed  them.  Doubt  ye  not, 
therefore,  but  earnestly  believe,  that  he  will  likewise  favourably 
receive  this  present  Infant ;  that  he  will  embrace  him  with  the  arms 
of  his  mercy  ;  that  he  will  give  unto  him  the  blessing  of  eternal  life, 
and  make  him  partaker  of  his  everlasting  kingdom.  Wherefore  we 
being  thus  persuaded  of  the  good-will  of  our  heavenly  Father  towards 
this  Infant,  declared  by  his  Son  Jesus  Christ :  and  nothing  doubting 
but  that  he  favourably  alloweth  this  charitable  work  of  curs  in 
bringing  this  Infant  to  his  holy  Baptism :  let  us  faithfully  and 
devoutly  give  thanks  unto  him.'  That,  in  truth,  is  the  only  founda- 
tion on  which  the  theory  and  practice  of  infant  baptism  can  be 
upheld  :  and  it  is  a  weak  foundation  at  the  best.  For  the  good-will 
of  Jesus  was  shown  towards  children  as  children,  simply  in  their 
natural  condition,  apart  from  any  doctrine  of  regeneration  :  whereas 
the  Minister  deals  with  children  from  an  opposite  point  of  view, 
saying  :  '  Forasmuch  as  all  men  are  conceived  and  born  in  sin,  and 
that  our  Saviour  Christ  saith,  None  can  enter  into  the  kingdom  of 
(!od,  except  he  be  regenerate  and  born  anew  of  Water  and  of  the 
holy  Ghost :  I  beseech  you  to  call  upon  God  the  Father,  through  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,  that  of  his  bounteous  mercy  he  will  grant  to  this 
Child  that  thing  which  by  nature  he  cannot  have.'  How  different  is 
this,  in  tone  and  spirit,  from  the  words  of  Jesus,  '  of  such  is  the 
kingdom  of  God.'  Infant  baptism  is  held  to  be  much  more  than  a  • 
mere  emblematic  and  figurative  rite,  as  the  prayers  by  which  it  is 
accompanied  plainly  indicate.  Something  supernatural  is  besought 
from  God,  and  is  declared  to  have  been  bestowed  by  him :  for  the 
priest  says,  '  AVe  yield  tliee  hearty  thanks,  most  merciful  Father,  that 


208  THE   KING    AND    THE    KINGDOM:  [part  ii. 

it  hath  pleased  thee  to  regenerate  this  Infant  with  thy  lioly  Spirit.' 
That  supernatural  gift  is  assumed  to  be  granted  at  the  font,  the 
prayers  used  putting  God  foremost  and  the  Priest  somewhat  in  the 
background.  But  in  nrgent  cases  of  private  baptism,  only  '  so  many 
of  the  Collects  appointed  to  be  said  before  in  the  Form  of  Public 
Baptism,  as  the  time  and  present  exigence  will  suffer,'  are  to  be  used ; 
and  as  soon  as  the  water  is  poured  upon  the  child,  and  the  words 
uttered,  '  I  baptize  thee  In  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son, 
and  of  the  Holy  G-host,'  God  is  thanked  as  before  :  '  We  yield  thee 
hearty  thanks,  most  merciful  Father,  that  it  hath  pleased  thee  to 
regenerate  this  Infant  with  thy  holy  Spirit.'  The  change  is  believed 
to  have  been  wrought  through  the  magic  of  those  few  priestly  words ! 
And  in  order  that  the  people  may  rely  unhesitatingly  on  the  efficacy 
of  the  rite,  both  in  this  world  and  the  next,  this  note  is  added :  '  It 
is  certain  by  God's  "Word,  that  Children  which  are  baptized,  dying 
before  they  commit  actual  sin,  are  undoubtedly  saved.'  Our  Lord 
Jesus  never  claimed  for  his  touch  and  blessing  any  such  power  as 
that.  Infant  baptism,  with  the  doctrines  thereto  attached,  is  no  part 
of  his  gospel,  but  an  invention  of  theologians.  They  have  not  only 
sought  to  justify  the  practice  by  referring  to  his  kindly  and  eulogistic 
words  spoken  with  respect  to  children,  but  in  another  Church 
ceremony  devised  by  them  they  have  imitated  his  laying  on  of  hands. 
Having  claimed  the  mystic  power  of  regenerating  infants  through 
water  and  the  holy  Spirit,  allowing  sponsors  to  promise  and  vow 
repentance  and  faith,  in  the  name  and  on  behalf  of  the  unconscious 
child,  they  thought  it  advisable,  and  from  their  point  of  view  it  might 
well  be  deemed  absolutely  necessary,. that  some  twelve  years  or  more 
afterwards  these  children  should  '  themselves  with  their  own  mouth 
and  consent,  openly  before  the  Church,  ratify  and  confirm  what  their 
Godfathers  and  Godmothers  promised  for  them  in  Baptism.'  That, 
by  itself,  would  have  constituted  a  very  simple,  touching  ceremony  : 
but  that  also  was  elaborated  in  accordance  with  assumptions  of 
priestly  influence  and  power.  '  The  Order  of  Confirmation,  or  laying 
on  of  hands  upon  those  that  are  baptized  and  come  to  years  of 
discretion,'  does  not  jDut  forward  any  claim  to  the  effect  that  grace 
and  virtue  flow  from  the  touch  of  the  Bishop's  hands.  On  the 
contrary,  that  action  is  left  altogether  vague  and  undefined  :  it  may 
be  taken  to  mean  little  or  much,  anything,  nothing,  or  everything, 
according  to  the  ideas  and  teaching  which  may  have  been  impressed 
upon  the  candidates  for  Confirmation.  But  it  is  a  most  natural 
question.  Why  should  the  laying  on  of  hands  have  been  instituted, 
and  why  should  it  have  been  restricted  to  one  holding  highest  office 
in  the  Church  ?  and  it  is  an  equally  natural  inference,  that  when  the 
Bishop  lays  '  his  hands  upon  the  heads  of  every  one  severally,'  some 
benefit  is  claimed,  or  intended,  or  believed,  or  hoped,  to  be  conveyed 
thereby.  If  not,  why  is  the  laying  on  of  hands  by  the  apostles  thus 
imitated,  and  in  connection  with  solemn  prayers  for  the  outpouring 
of '  the  holy  Ghost  ?  '  The  only  guidance  vouchsafed  on  this  point  is 
that  the  Bishop,  in  the  Collect,  says,  'upon  whom  (after  the  example 
of  thy  holy  Apostles)  we  have  now  laid  our  hands,  to  certify  them 
(by  this  sign)  of  thy  favour  and  gracious  goodness  towards  them.' 
The  individual  Bishop  assumes  the  recognised  style  of  royalty, 
speaking  of  himself  as  '  we,'  '  we  have  now  laid  our  hands.'     When 


PART  II.]         A    STUDY    OF   THE    FOUR    GOSPELS.  209 

the  apostles  laid  on  their  hands,  some  visible,  oral,  or  other  manifes- 
tation of  the  Holy  Spirit's  presence  followed  :  the  Bishop  claims  only 
that  he  u-ives  a  '  sio-n,'  not  even  of  some  inward  and  spiritual  crace, 
bnt  simjily  of  (lod's  '  favour  and  2;racions  ij^oodness.'  If  that  is  all, 
why  this  pnnctilionsness  of  ceremony  and  gesture  ?  "We  do  not  need 
the  touch  of  a  Bishop's  hand  to  assure  us  of  the  well-known  truth 
that  our  heavenly  Father  is  loving  unto  every  man.  Infant  Baptism, 
the  Catechism,  and  the  Order  of  Confirmation  constitute  an  artificial 
system  of  Church  membership,  and  cry  aloud  for  honest  criticism 
and  revision.  The  intention  was  good  :  to  christianise  every  child 
from  birth,  to  lay  down  a  recognised  form  of  religious  teaching,  and 
in  due  time  to  im]iress  upon  every  young  person  the  solemn  obliga- 
tions of  Christianity.  No  provision  was  made,  how^evcr,  for  any 
changes  which  might  become  necessary  by  the  advancement  of  reli- 
gious thought  and  the  modification  of  existing  creeds  :  the  compilers 
of  the  Prayer  Book  assumed  the  absolute  perfection  and  incontrover- 
tibility  of  every  doctrine  they  laid  down,  and  demanded  an  unques- 
tioning submission  to  the  forms  and  ceremonies  they  prescribed. 
How  little  influence  such  clerical  teaching  has  had  upon  adults 
generally  is  evidenced  by  the  constant  failure  of  multitudes  to  attend, 
except  at  rare  intervals  of  their  own  choosing,  the  Lord's  supper.  In 
vain  do  the  clergy  invite,  implore,  insist  upon  spiritual  benefits  to  be 
derived  from  frequent  participation,  and  danger  to  the  soul  from 
neglect  of  the  ordinance  :  the  majority  of  the  congregation  habituahy 
turn  their  backs  upon  it,  and  treat  the  exhortations  of  the  ^Minister 
with  silent  contempt,  albeit  in  every  other  point  of  divine  worship 
and  Christian  living  they  may  be  as  devout  and  blameless  as  the 
comparatively  few  regular  communicants.  Does  not  that  prove  the 
existence  of  a  widespread  unbelief  with  respect  to  the  sacramental 
dogmas  insisted  on  by  the  clergy  ?  Men  and  women  are  not  afraid  to 
disregard  their  teaching  and  injunctions,  and  face  the  threatened 
penalties.  But  their  children  they  are  still  careful  to  bring  to 
l)aptisra,  and  would  not  withhold  them  from  confirmation.  This 
state  of  things  might  go  on  for  an  indefinite  period,  Avere  it  not  that 
the  number  of  those  who  think  for  themselves  on  religious  matters, 
or  are  led  by  other  teachers,  is  ever  on  the  increase.  Some  there  are, 
none  can  say  how  many  or  how  few,  who  deem  the  clergy  generally 
unsafe  and  unwise  guides,  and  who  are  anxious  to  keep  their  children's 
minds  free  from  clerical  dogmatic  teacliing  ;  who  dare  not  take  the 
responsibility  of  imposing  upon  their  children  a  catechism,  to  be 
learnt  by  rote,  which  is  altogether  out  of  harmony  with  their  own 
convictions  and  feelings  ;  and  who  could  not  conscientiously  urge 
them  to  submit  themselves  to  examination  by  a  clergyman  to  be 
prepared  after  his  fashion  as  candidates  for  confirmation.  The  next 
step  in  advance  must  needs  be  that  the  catechism  and  rite  of  confir- 
mation will  fall  more  and  more  into  desuetude,  and  unless  that  should 
lead  to  an  utter  disregard  of  the  Lord's  supper, — which  God  forbid, 
though  one  sees  not  how,  under  present  circumstances,  it  can  perma- 
nently hold  its  ground, — there  must  be  a  deliberate  setting  aside  of 
the  rule  originally  laid  dowm  :  '  And  there  shall  none  be  admitted  to 
the  holy  Communion,  until  such  time  as  he  be  confirmed,  or  be  ready 
and  desirous  to  be  confirmed.'  The  clergy  themselves  must  needs  be 
leavened  with  the  spirit  of  the  age  in  which  they  live.     As  a  body 


210  THE   KING    AND    THE   KINGDOM:  [part  ir. 

they  have  already  ceased  from  making  any  vigorous  protest ;  some  of 
them  are  sure  to  iml)ibe  or  to  sympathise  with  the  new  opinions 
embraced  by  the  intelhgent  among  the  laity.  There  are  old  penalties 
and  antiquated  laAvs  still  upon  the  statute-book,  which  no  man  now 
would  think  of  enforcing  :  the  same  gradual  process  of  neglect  and 
oblivion  will  render  obsolete  the  Catechism  and  the  Confirmation  cere- 
mony, and  then,  to  save  Baptism  and  Holy  Communion  from  a 
similar  fate,  they  will  have  to  be  freed  from  the  superstition,  errors 
and  false  assumptions  Avith  which  they  are  interwoven,  and  remodelled 
in  a  form  to  harmonise  with  the  light  of  reason  and  the  simplicity 
which  led  men  to  welcome  them  when  first  instituted.  Meantime, 
imtil  that  or  some  other  devoutly  to  be  Avished  for  consummation  is 
arrived  at,  the  breach  between  clergy  and  laity  must  widen,  the 
influence  of  the  former  continue  to  decline,  and  some  of  the  best 
minds  and  purest  hearts  among  the  latter  be  content  to  bear,  silently 
or  with  an  occasional  protest,  the  false  charge  of  indifference,  irre- 
verence, atheism,  or  whatever  other  brand  denoting  a  fundamental 
difference  of  opinion  may  be  imposed  upon  them.  Not  the  clergy  of 
the  present  day,  but  their  predecessors,  who  fondly  persuaded  them- 
selves tliat  they  held  the  truth,  the  Avhole  truth,  and  nothing  but  the 
truth  in  theology,  and  vainly  hoped  to  stereotype  their  own  ideas 
upon  the  members  of  the  Church  of  England  for  all  time,  are  re- 
sponsible for  this  entanglement.  There  are  two  things  the  heaven- 
sent doctrine  will  not  bear :  the  pressure  of  the  human  hand, 
moulding  it  into  a  particular  form  ;  and  the  admixture  of  human 
inventions. 

In  the  account  of  the  following  incident  the  discrepancies  between 
the  ancient  MSS.  indicate  that  commentators  in  early  times  had  set. 
themselves  to  the  task  of  revising  and  altering  the  original  documents. 

I'.i  Mat.  10  111  the  Revised  Version  Matthew  begins  as  follows  :  'And  behold,  one- 
came  to  him  and  said.  Master  (or,  Teacher),  Avhat  good  thing  shall  I 
do,  that  I  may  have  eternal  life  ? '  The  Eevisers  note  that  '  some 
ancient  authorities  read  Good  Master.''  It  so  stands  in  the  Authorised 
Version,  but  the  two  oldest  MSS.  omit  'good.'  The  Authorised 
Version  continues  :  '  And  he  said  unto  him,  Why  callest  thou  ine 
„  17  good  ? '  The  Revisers,  following  the  two  oldest  MSS.,  render :  'And 
he  said  unto  him,  '  Why  asketh  thou  me  concerning  that  which  is 
good  ? '  This  refers,  not  to  any  appellation  bestowed  on  Jesus,  but. 
to  the  question,  '  What  good  thing  shall  I  do  ? '  The  Authorised 
Version,  agreeing  with  '  some  ancient  authorities,'  adds  :  '  lliere  is 
„  17  none  good  but  one,  that  is  God.'  The  Revised  Version  stands  :  '  One 
there  is  who  is  good.'  Tichendorf's  Tauchnitz  Edition  gives  the 
reading  of  the  two  oldest  MSS.  thus  :  '  Why  askest  thou  me  con- 
cerning what  is  good  ?  He  Avho  is  good  is  One.'  But  Dr.  Samuel 
Davidson's  translation  of  Tischendorf's  critical  text  is  as  follows  : 
'  Why  askest  thou  me  concerning  the  good  ?  One  is  the  good.' 
There  seems  to  be  uncertainty  about  the  translation  as  well  as  about 
the  reading.  Mark  describes  how  the  man  ran  to  Jesus  and  knelt 
before  him  ;  and  the  question  put  diflfers  somewhat,  and  the  answer 

10  Mark  17-  entirely.  '  And  as  he  was  going  forth  into  the  way  (or,  on  his  way), 
there  ran  one  to  bim,  and  kneeled  to  him,  and  asked  him.  Good 
Master  (or,  Teacher),  what  shall  I  do  that  I  may  inherit  eternal  life  ?■ 


PART  II.]         A    STUDY    OF    THE    FOUR    GOSPELS.  211 

And  Jesns  said  unto  him,  Why  callest  thou  mc  good  ?  none  is  good 
save  one,  «Y'«  (}od.'     Luke  adds  that  the  man  Avas  a  ruler.     'And  a  is  Luke  is. 
certain  ruler  asked  him,  saying,  Good  Master  (or.  Teacher),  Avhat  ^^ 

shall  I  do  to  inherit  eternal  life  ?  And  Jesus  said  unto  him,  Why 
callest  thou  me  good  ?  none  is  good,  save  one,  even  God,'  The 
reading  of  the  Sinaitic  and  Vatican  MSS.  proves  that  the  passage 
in  i\Iatthew  had  been  altered  to  harmonise  with  jMark  and  Luke. 
Alford  says  :  'This  passage  furnishes  one  of  the  most  instructive  and 
palpable  cases  of  the  smoothing  down  of  apparent  discrepancies  by 
correcting  the  Gospels  out  of  one  another  and  thus  reducing  them  to 
conformity.'  Let  us  consider  first  the  words  as  they  stand  in  ]\rark 
and  Luke.  The  point  of  the  reply  turns  upon  the  word  'good' in 
the  question.  '  Good  J\Iaster  .  .  .  Why  callest  thou  me  good?'  It 
seems  to  have  been  assumed,  as  though  it  were  a  matter  of  course, 
that  Jesus  thereby  reproved  the  questioner  for  applying  to  him  the 
term  '  good,'  and  afterwards  proceeded  to  answer  the  question.  But 
that  is  a  mere  guess,  without  a  foundation,  and  it  is  more  reasonable 
to  take  the  words  as  forming  part  of  the  answer  to  the  question. 
'  Why  ? '  is  properly  equivalent  to  '  wherefore  ? '  'on  what  account  ?  ' 
'for  what  reason?'  The  questioner  is  bidden  to  ask  himself  that 
question.  What  induced  him  to  come  to  Jesus,  and  to  consider  hiiu 
a  '  good  Teacher  ? '  AVas  it  not  because  of  his  work,  his  life,  his 
teaching  ?  He  was  engaged  in  God's  work  :  his  life  was  devoted  to 
God's  cause,  the  establishment  of '  the  kingdom  of  God  ; '  he  taught 
men  to  obey  the  will  of  God.  God  was  the  sole  fountain  of  good  ; 
'  none  is  good  save  one — God  ; '  that  must  be  the  doctrine  of  every 
good  teacher.  Therefore  the  question,  '  What  shall  I  do  ?  '  admitted 
only  of  one  answer  :  '  Thouknowest  God's  commandments: '  do  them. 
This  harmonises  perfectly  with  the  original  reading  of  Matthew's 
gospel  as  now  accepted  by  the  Eevisers.  He  also  makes  the  point  of 
the  answer  turn  upon  the  word  'good'  in  the  question  :  but  in  quite 
a  different  way.  He  omits  mention  of  the  title  '  good '  which  was 
applied  to  Jesus  as  a  Teacher,  and  he  brings  out  the  fact  that  the 
questioner  asked,  '  What  good  thing  shall  I  do  ? '  There  is  no  incon- 
sistency between  the  evangelists  so  far.  Then  "Matthew  omits  the 
sentence  which  the  others  record  '  Why  callest  thou  me  good  ?  '  and 
he  introduces  a  sentence  which  they  omit :  '  Why  askest  thou  me 
concerning  that  which  is  good  ? '  Still  there  is  no  inconsistency,  and 
if  only  we  do  not  presume  to  introduce  without  warrant  the  extraneous 
idea  that  Jesus  wished  to  convey  a  reproof  and  to  repudiate  any  claim 
to  a  customary  title  of  respect,  the  evangelists  are  in  harmony  as  to 
the  sense  :  '  Why  callest  thou  me  good  ? '  and  '  Why  askest  thou  me 
concerning  that  which  is  good  ?  '  are  sentences  which  might  naturally 
b3  spoken  in  conjunction,  the  'good  Teacher'  being  applied  to  'con- 
cerning that  which  is  good.'  Any  ambiguity  attaching  to  the  words, 
*  AVhy  callest  thou  me  good  ? '  is  removed,  and  the  true  sense  of  that 
expression  showm,  by  the  additional  sentence,  '  Why  askest  thou  me 
concerning  that  which  is  good  ? '  Instead  of  assuming  a  discrepancy 
between  the  evangelists,  read  the  accounts  together,  and  all  difficulty 
of  interpretation  disappears.  The  attempt  to  reconcile  them  by 
partially  suppressing  and  transforming  the  original  account  of 
Matthew,  proceeded  from  error  of  judgment  and  want  of  insight 
The  question,  '  Why  askest  thou  me  concerning  that  which  is  good  ?  > 

p  2 


212  THE    KING    AND    THE    KINGDOM :  [part  ii. 

would  surely  not  be  assumed  to  indicate  reproof,  as  thouirh  the  man 
deserved  blame  for  making  such  an  enquiry  of  Jesus  :  there  is  no 
more  reason  for  such  a  supposition  with  respect  to  the  words,  '  Why 
callesfc  thou  me  good  ? '  The  drift  of  the  two  questions  is  in  the  same 
direction  :  whoever  regarded  Jesus  as  a  good  teacher  concerning 
that  which  is  good,  must  be  prepared  to  jjelieve  that  God  was  the 
only  good,  for  the  life  and  life-work  of  Jesus  began,  continued,  and 
ended  in  G-od, 

Here  as  elsewhere  Young  renders  '  eternal  life  '  by   '  age-during 
life  : '  a  most  important  distinction  :  for  '  age-during '  life  denotes 
the  natural  continuance  of  being,  whereas  '  eternal  life '  seems  to  be 
regarded  as  a  new,  exceptional,  or    special  gift,  even  when  it  is  not 
explained  away  into   something  difl'erent,   as   equivalent  to  eternal 
happiness.     There  can  be  but  one  way  of  reaching  the  utmost  span  of 
life,  either  now  in  this  world  or  hereafter  in  another.     God's  laws 
must  be  observed,  not  only  in  view  of  their  constituti(nial,  individual 
influence  on  mind  and  body,  but  of  their  indirect  effects,  socially  as 
well  as  personally.     The  life  of  each  depends  upon  his  neighbour's 
observance  of  the  law,  '  Thou  shalt  not  kill,'  and  the  law  of  heredity, 
working    retributively    in    silence,    lays    upon    children    the    sins, 
wilful  or  ignorant,  of  parents,  sapping  the  health  and  shortening  the 
lives  of  the  entire  community.     Jesus  could  only  give  one  answer  to 
19  Mat.  17     the  enquiry.     '  But  if  thou  wouldest  enter  into  life,  keep  the  com- 
mandments.'    Here  again  Mark  and  Luke  are  more  condensed  than 
Matthew,  their  record  of  the  words  being  simply,  '  Thou  knowest  the 
commandments.'     Matthew  tells  us  that  another  question  was  here 
„    IS     pat.     '  He  saith   unto  him,  "Which  ? '      Jesus  in  reply  quoted   the 
,.    IS     commandments  relating  to  the  duties  of  man  to  man.     '  And  Jesus 
said,  Thou  shalt  not  kill.  Thou  shalt  not  commit  adultery,  Thou  shalt 
not  steal,  Thou  shalt  not  bear  false  witness.  Honour  thy  father  and 
thy  mother  :  and,  Thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbour  as  thyself.'     Mark 
10  Mark  10    omits  the  closing  summary,  and  introduces,  '  Do  not  defraud.'    '  Thou 
knowest  the  commandments,  Do  not  kill.  Do  not  commit  adultery, 
Do  not  steal,  Do  not  bear  false  witness.  Do  not  defraud,  Honour  thy 
father  and  thy  mother.'     Luke  reverses  the  order  of  the  first  two. 
IS  Luke  20    '  Thou  kuowest  the  commandments.  Do  not  commit  adultery,  Do  not 
kill,  Do  not  steal,  Do  not  bear  false  witness,  Honour  thy  father  and 
mother.'   The  answer  of  Jesus  amounts  to  this  :  that  an  '  inheritance ' 
of  age-during  life  is  only  attainable  through  the  due  observance  of 
every  social  duty,     But  as  a  matter  of  course  the  greater  includes  the 
less  :  personal  virtue  and  self-control  are  indispensable  to  every  man; 
nature  itself  teaches  that  intemperance  must  destroy  health,  and  cut 
short  life,  and  that  proper  care  must  be  taken  to  preserve  the  body 
from  dangers,  from  undue  heat  and  cold,  and  from  accidents.     These 
things  are  necessarily  foremost  in  our  own  minds,  but  Jesus  does  not 
even  mention  them.     The  question  proposed  was  purely  personal, — 
selfish  :  '  What  shall  I  do  that  I  may  inherit  age-during  life  ?  '     That 
is  a  boon  which  can  never  come  through  individual  self-seeking  ; 
never  to  any  except  through  fulfilment  of  the  duties  due  from  each  to 
all.     Apart  from  that  consummation  of  social  life,  and  until  it  shall 
be  reached,  there  can  be  no  age-during  life  for  any.     That  good  gift  of 
>     God  will  never  be  ours  until,  through  the  teaching  and  grace  of  Jesus, 
the   Church,  that   is  the  assembly  of  believers,  the  community  of 


PART  II.]         .1    STUDY    OF   THE    FOUR    GOSPELS.  213 

Christians,  shall  have  learnt  to  live  by  his  precept,  '  Thou  shalt  love 
thy  neighbour  as  thyself.' 

Prol)uhly  the  enquirer  was  disappointed  at  the  reply.     Instead  of 
the  '  good  thing '  he  had  desired  to  learn  about,  Jesus  had  simply 
thrown  him  back  ui)on  old,  well  known  duties.    'And  he  said.  All  these  is  LuUp  21 
things  ha^■e  I  observed  from  my  youth  up.'     Mark  notes  that  he  still 
addressed  Jesus  as  *  Teacher.'      'And  he  said  unto  him,  Master  (or,  10 Mark 20 
Teacher),  all  these  things  have  I  observed  from  my  youth.'    JMatthew, 
as  before,  is  a  little  fuller,  telling  us  that  the  man  was  young,  and 
that  he  ]iropoundcd  another  question.     '  The  young  man  saith  unto  10  Mat.  20 
him,  All  these  things  have  I  observed  :    what  lack  I  yet '  ?    The 
answer  to  that  was  very  plain   and   startling.     '  And  when   Jesus  is  Luke  22 
heard  it,  he  said  unto  him.  One  thing  thou  lackest  yet :  sell  all  that 
thou  hast,  and  distribute  unto  the  poor.'     The  expression,  '  when 
Jesus  heard  it,'  seems  to  denote  that  he  was  struck  by  the  observa- 
tion.    ]\Iark  adds   that  he  gazed   upon   the   speaker,   and  at   once 
manifested  an  affection  towards  him.     'And  Jesus  looking  upon  him  10  Mark  21 
loved  him,  and  said  unto  him,  One  thing  thou  lackest  :    go,  sell 
whatsoever  thou  hast,  and  give  to  the  poor.'      Matthew  again  adds  a 
sentence  :  '  Jesus  said  unto  him,  If  thou  wouldest  be  perfect,  go,  sell  m  Mat.  21 
that  thou  hast,  and  give  to  the  poor.'     That  was  indeed  a  counsel  of 
perfection,   a   demand   wholly   unexpected.     Yet   it   would   be   but 
another  step  in  the  same  direction  :  he  who  claims  to  have  fulfilled 
all  duties,  up  to  the  point  of  loving  his  neighl)onr  as  himself,  and 
then  asks  what  more  he  can  do,  must  needs  be  called  upon  to  prove 
that  he  loves  his  neighbour  better   than   himself.     That   involved 
discipleship  to  Jesus,  self-sacrifice  for   the  world's  sake  being  the 
very  essence  of  his  call.     He  wanted  men  as  followers  who  would 
forsake  all  things  for  his  cause,  who  accepted  his  axiom  that  where 
the  treasure  is  there  is  the  heart  also,  and  who  would  be  content  to 
have  no  tic  to  earth,  laying  up  treasure  in  heaven.     That  hope  he 
held  out  to  the  young  man,  inviting  him  to  share  the  same  lot  as  him- 
self :  '  and  thou  shalt  have  treasure  in  heaven  :  and  come,  follow  me.'  10  Mark  21 
The  Authorised  Version  of  Mark  has  after  '  come  '  the  Avords  '  take  is  Luke  22 
up  the  cross,'  which  the  Revisers  have  omitted  on  the  authority  of  the  i^  ^if^t.  21 
two  oldest  M8S.     It  was  a  magnificient  opportunity,  this  invitation 
to  place  himself  by  the  side  of  the  good  Teacher,  and  to  help  forward 
his  plans  for  the  establishment  of  God's  kingdom.     But  the  young- 
man  was  unable  to  rise  to  the  occasion.     His  demeanour  changed  at 
once  ;   a  great  sorrow  took  possession  of  him,  for  he  could  not  bring 
himself  to  accept  the  call,  involving  as  it  did  the  loss  of  property  and 
position,  and  he  must  needs  turn  his  back  upon  Jesus,  wliose  advice 
he  had  sought  with  such  enthusiasm.     'But  his  countenance  fell  at  10 Mark 23 
the  saying,  and  he  went  away  sorrowful  :    for  he  was  one  that  had 
grcF.t  possessions.'     '  But  when  the  young  man  heard  the  saying,  he  10  Mat.  22 
went  away  sorrowful :    for  he  was  one  that  had  great  possessions.' 
'  But  when  he  heard  these  things,  he  became  exceeding  sorrowful ;  is  Lir.:o  23 
for  he  was  very  rich.'      Must  not  Jesus  himself  have  felt  sorrowful  at 
this  failure  of  his  effort  to  gain  a  disciple  ?    He  could  not  abate  his 
terms,  but  he  knew  well  how  hard  it,  was  to  comply  with  them.    '  And       „     21 
Jesus  seeing  him  said.  How  hardly  shall  they  that  have  riche.?  enter 
into  the  kingdom  of  God  ! '    The  observation  was  addressed  to  the 
disciples.     '  And  Jesus  said  unto  his  disciples,  Verily  I  say  unto  you,  19  Mat.  23 


214  THE   KING    AND    THE   KINGDOM:  [part  ii. 

It  is  hard  for  a  rich  man  to  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven.' 
Mark  notes  that  he  surveyed  his  disciples,  as  though  realising  the 

10  Mark  23  fact  that  they  \Yere  all  of  another  class  than  this  young  ruler.  '  And 
Jesus  looked  round  about,  and  saith  unto  his  disciples,  How  hardly 
shall  they  that  have  riches  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God  ! '  It  is 
„  24  added  :  'And  the  disciples  were  amazed  at  his  words.'  That  he 
should  make  the  forsaking  of  all  things  a  condition  of  disci pleship, 
was  no  new  doctrine  to  their  ears  ;  for  he  had  previously  laid  down 

14  Luke  33  the  rulc,  '  Whosoever  he  be  of  you  that  renounceth  not  all  that  he 
hath,  he  cannot  be  my  disciple.'  But  this  saying  about  the  incom- 
patibility of  wealth  and  godliness  seemed  to  extend  the  rule  beyond 

10  Mark  24  profcssed  disciplcship,  Jesus  however,  repeated  the  assertion.  '  But 
Jesus  answereth  again,  and  saith  unto  them,  Children,  how  hard  is 
it  for  them  that  trust  in  riches  to  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God  ! ' 
The  words,  '  for  them  that  trust  in  riches,'  seem  to  tone  down  some- 
what the  previous  remark  ;  but  they  are  not  found  in  the  two  oldest 
MSS.,  aud  the  Eevisers  have  noted  that  '  some  ancient  authorities 
omit'  them.     Jesus  reiterated  the   truth  in  a  strikingly  emphatic 

19  Mat.  24  form.  '  And  again  I  say  unto  you.  It  is  easier  for  a  camel  to  go 
through  a  needle's  eye,  than  for  a  rich  man  to  enter  into  the  kingdom 

10  Mark  25    of  God.'     The  words  stand  precisely  the  same  in  Mark,  and  in  Luke 

18 Luke 25  the  oiily  difference  is  'enter  in  through'  instead  of  'go  through.' 
The  hyperbole  denotes  an  absolute  impossibility.  We  must  not 
venture  to  explain  away  or  diminish  the  force  of  a  declaration  which 
Jesus  saw  fit  to  make  so  solemnly.  It  looks  as  if  some  early  com- 
mentator had  sought  to  do  that,  by  inserting  in  Mark  the  words  'for 
them  that  trust  in  riches,'  Nothing  can  quality  the  simile,  which 
enforces  the  moral  impossibility  under  the  figure  of  a  physical 
impossibihty.  '  The  kingdom  of  God,'  rendered  by  Young,  '  the 
reign  of  God,'  obviously  denotes  a  state  of  life  in  which  everything 

10 Luke  10  is  ruled  after  the  divine  will.  'The  law  and  the  prophets /r«-c  until 
John  :  from  that  time  the  gospel  of  the  kingdom  of  God  is  preached.' 
Men  were  invited  to  enter  into  a  higher  sphere  of  spirilual  activity, 
to  throw  aside  all  worldly  maxims,  to  inaugurate  the  life  of  heaven 
on  earth,  taking  the  precepts  of  Jesus  for  their  rule  of  duty.  There 
is  no  favouritism  in  God's  kingdom  ;  there  must  be  no  selfishness 
among  God's  children.  Between  Christian  brethren  there  must  be 
no  sharp  contrasts  of  wealth  and  poverty,  no  superfluity  of  riches 
restricted  to  a  few,  whilst  many  suffer  abject  poverty.  That  is 
Christ's  ideal  of  a  Christian  community ;  that  is  God's  ideal  of  his 
kingdom  :  not  all  that  is  meant  by  '  the  reign  of  God,'  but  an  im- 
portant part  thereof,  so  that  it  was  impossible  for  a  rich  man  to  enter 
in.  If  words  have  meaning,  Jesus  meant  that.  If  we  say  :  under  the 
present  state  of  society  that  cannot  be, — that  is  simply  asserting  that 
God's  kingdom  cannot  be.  In  truth,  it  is  a  vision  which  has  never 
yet  been  realised  on  earth.  One  fact  alone  is  enough  to  prove  that 
much  :  the  existence  of  armies  and  navies,  the  perpetuation  through- 
out nineteen  centuries  after  the  coming  of  Christ  of  the  spirit  and 
habit  of  war,  with  the  multiplied  and  inevitable  horrors  attendant 
upon  destruction  and  carnage.  There  is  no  approach  to  the  reign  of 
God  whilst  the  kingdoms  of  the  world  are  ruled  after  such  a  fashion. 
The  inequalities  of  social  life,  the  highest  class  revelling  in 
splendid  luxury,  the  lowest  class,  generation  after  generation,  born  to 


PART  II.]        A    STUDY    OF    THE   FOUR    GOSPELS.  215 

want  and  misery  :  are  not  these  contrasts  equally  contrary  to  the 
spirit  and  teaching:?  of  Jesus  ?  He  declared  that  before  a  rich  man 
could  take  the  lirst  step  into  the  kingdom  of  God,  he  must  part  with 
his  wealth.  All  the  first  disciples,  undertakinG;  as  they  did  to  devote 
themselves  to  the  establishment  of  the  kingdom  of  God  were  urged 
to  renounce  all  they  had  for  the  cause  of  Jesus.  Only  by  coming 
withiri  the  circle  of  disciplesliij)  could  men  enter  the  kingdom  of  God. 
The  two  terms,  a  '  disciple'  aud  a  'member  of  the  kingdom  of  God,' 
are  synonymous.  The  rich  ruler's  refusal  of  the  call,  '  Come, 
follow  me,'  is  instantly  spoken  of  by  Jesus  as  a  refusal  to  '  enter  into 
the  kingdom  of  God,'  the  one  being  identical  with  the  other.  And 
as  but  few  became  disciples,  not  many  beiug  invited  by  Jesus,  and  all 
men  being  dissuaded  by  him  unless  they  first  counted  the  cost,  so  there 
"were  but  few  who  entered  the  kingdom  of  God,  Jesus  declaring  it  to 
be  a  very  hard  thing  to  do  so,  especially  for  the  rich.  But  no  con- 
demnation was  involved  on  the  multitudes  who  were  not  disciples, 
and  who  did  not  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God.  That  kingdom  was 
not  even  preached  until  the  coming  of  the  Baptist,  and  then  only  the 
strong-minded  could  take  it  as  by  force.  'The  law  and  the  prophets  i6Lukeit> 
■icrre  until  John  :  from  that  time  the  gospel  of  the  kingdom  of  God  is 
preached,  and  every  man  entereth  violently  into  it.'  I'or  weaker  men 
there  was  room  enough  to  live  in  peace  and  safety  outside,  taking  '  the 
law  and  the  prophets'  for  their  rule  of  conduct.  Their  loss  was  a 
loss  of  privilege,  not  of  the  life,  not  of  the  soul.  To  be  outside  God's 
kingdom  involved  no  threat  of  divine  judgment :  exclusion  and 
regret  were  the  penalties  pressed  home  to  the  minds  of  the  Jews  by 
Jesus  :  '  There  shall  be  the  weeping  and  gnashing  of  teeth,  w^hen  ye  13  Luke  2s 
shall  see  Abraham,  and  Isaac,  and  Jacob,  and  all  the  prophets  in  the 
kingdom  of  God,  and  yourselves  cast  forth  without.'  Xot  individual 
salvation,  but  the  regeneration  of  society,  was  the  sum  and  scope  of 
the  '  gospel  of  the  kingdom '  which  Jesus  preached  ;  the  word  '  king- 
dom '  sufficiently  denotes  that  the  coming  reformation  was  to  be  not 
simply  individual  and  personal  but  socialistic  and  communal,  termed 
by  Jude  '  our  common  salvation.'  So  far  off  are  we  from  such  a  jude  3 
realization  of  God's  kingdom,  that  the  work  of  its  establishment  has 
to  be  begun  afresh.  Not  until  those  who  claim  to  be  Ministers, 
representatives,  disciples,  followers, — no  matter  what  title  be  chosen, 
— of  Jesus,  adopt  his  maxims  and  requirements  absolutely  without  an 
exception,  renouncing  all  things  for  his  sake,  thereby  giving  to  the 
world  the  strange  spectacle  of  a  body  of  believers  prepared  not  to 
resist  evil,  not  to  claim  legal  rights,  not  to  fight  under  any  circum- 
stances, not  to  accumulate  property,  but  to  live  entirely  for  the  king- 
dom of  heaven, — not  until  Ave  are  taught  by  such  living  examples  the 
true  doctrine  of  Jesus,  will  his  spirit  begin  again  to  permeate  society. 
Count  Leon  Tolstoi  has  boldly  thought  out  tliat  truth  ;  we  must  not 
let  it  go,  neither  must  we  assume  such  a  rule  of  life  to  be  binding 
upon  all  men.  Discipleship  to  Jesus  must  be  voluntary  and  excep- 
tional still,  as  it  was  at  first.  The  idea  that  all  are  called  to  disciple- 
ship is  an  absurdity.  Ministers  of  the  Church  of  England  sign  any 
and  every  child  '  with  the  sign  of  the  cross,  in  token  that  hereafter 
he  shall  not  be  ashamed  to  confess  the  faith  of  Christ  crucified,  and 
manfully  to  fight  under  his  banner,  against  sin,  the  world,  and  the 
devil ;  and  to  continue  Christ's  faithful  soldier  and  servant  unto  his 


216  THE    KIKG    AND    THE    KINGDOM:  [part  ii, 

life's  end.'  Words,  Avords,  nothing  but  words  !  The  ideal  is  pitched 
3  piiii.  u  too  high  :  such  a  '  high  calling  of  God  in  Christ  Jesus  '  was  never 
meant  to  be  universal,  still  less  to  be  imposed  upon  unconscious 
infants.  It  is  as  utterly  out  of  place  and  wide  of  truth,  as  it  would 
be  to  devote  every  babe  to  a  soldier's  life  and  duties,  knowing  well 
that  in  nearly  every  case  a  different  profession  would  be  followed. 
Fictions  such  as  these,  passed  on  as  an  inheritance  from  age  to  age, 
have  dimmed  our  spiritual  eyesight ;  and  until  they  are  put  aside,  and 
the  plain  truth,  which  is  always  and  alone  God's  truth,  faced,  our 
■2  i.  Cor.  12  perceptive  faculties  will  not  be  equal  to  the  comprehension  of  '  the 
tilings  that  are  freely  given  us  by  God.'  Before  Christ's  precepts 
can  be  acted  upon,  men  must  rise  to  the  level  of  them.  In  the  pre- 
sent state  of  society  any  general  adoption  of  them  would  be  impossible, 
and,  if  suddenly  attempted,  injurious.  That  many  rich  men  should 
sell  their  jDOSsessions  and  give  to  the  poor,  would  be  quite  as  much  to 
the  loss  and  detriment  of  the  poor  as  of  the  rich.  Almsgiving  tests 
the  character  of  those  who  receive  as  well  as  of  those  who  give  ; 
indiscriminate  charity  quenches  energy  and  self-reliance,  and  tends 
to  pauperise,  that  is,  to  render  perpetually  poor  those  who  rely  upon  it. 
The  trustees  of  the  Peabody  fund  could  find  no  better  way  of  bene- 
fiting the  poor  of  London  than  that  of  building  better  dwellings,  at 
moderate  rentals,  for  the  working  class.  Hospitals,  infirmaries,  refuges, 
reformatories,  workhouses, — we  must  needs  have  them  still,  but  the  less 
the  better  :  for  they  are  evidences  either  of  under-payment  for  labour 
or  of  improvidence  among  labourers.  The  masters  who  are  careful  to 
pay  their  workmen  fairly,  do  more  for  the  poor  and  promote  more  the 
kingdom  of  God,  than  those  who  accumulate  huge  fortunes,  keeping 
down  wages  under  cast-iron  laws  of  supply  and  demand  as  decreed  by 

*  Political  Economy,'  and  who  then  disgorge  a  portion  of  the  ill-gotten 
superfluity  to  help  workmen  in  ways  wherein,  if  the  profits  on  labour 
were  fairly  divided,  they  should  be  able  and  would  be  willing  to  help 
themselves.  Preachers  boast  of  what  Christianity  has  done  in  the  shape 
of  charitable  institutions  :  but  all  that  paraphernalia  of  charity  is 
really  an  evidence  that  the  '  kingdom  of  God '  has  not  yet  come,  that 
the  spirit  and  scheme  of  Christianity  have  not  yet  been  realised. 

The  disciples  heard  the  declaration  of  Jesus  with  the  utmost 
amazement.  If  it  was  impossible  for  a  rich  man  to  enter  God's  king- 
dom, who  would  be  found  ready  to  accept  salvation  at  such  a  cost  ? 
This  rich  ruler  might  be  taken  as  an  example  of  others  in  like  circum- 

I'.i  Mat.  25  stances.  '  And  when  the  disciples  heard  it,  they  Avere  astonished 
exceedingly,  saying,  Who  then  can  be  saved  ? '  The  Authorised 
Version  of  Mark  represents  them  as  enquiring  this  '  among  them- 
selves,' but  the  Revisers,  following  the  two  oldest  MSS,,  take  the 

10  Mark  2G  qucstiou  to  havc  been  addressed  to  Jesus.  'And  they  were  astonished 
exceedingly,  saying  unto  him,  Then  Avho  can  be  saved  ? '      Luke 

IS  Luke  20  is  briefer  and  vaguer.  'And  they  that  heard  it  said.  Then  who  can 
be  saved  ?  '  Obviously  the  word  '  who  '  signifies,  '  who  among  such 
persons,'  only  the  wealthy  being  alluded  to.     The  sense  of  the  word 

*  saved '  must  be  fixed  by  the  context :  saved  out  of  the  world,  and 
admitted  into  the  kingdom  of  God.  There  is  no  fixed  meaning- 
attachable  to  the  word  '  saved,'  albeit  theologians  are  in  the  habit  of 
defining  it   in   one   particular  way.     The   apostle   Peter  speaks  of 

*  salvation  '  as  a  term  of  such  wide  and  doubtful  meaning  that  those 


PART  II.]         -'(    HTUDY    OF    THE    FOUR    GOSPELS.  217 

who  used  it  hud  been  uncert;iin  as  to  its  iini)ort :  '  Keceivint-;  the  end  i  i.  im.o-ii 
of  your  faith,  crni  the  salvation  of  //our  souls.  Ooucernini^-  which 
salvation  the  prophets  sought  and  searched  diligently,  who  prophesied 
of  the  grace  that  should  come  unto  you  :  searching  what  time  or  what 
manner  of  time  the  Spirit  of  Christ  which  was  in  them  did  point 
unto.'  Salvation  relates  to  a  time  or  manner  of  time,  that  is,  the 
cstabh'shment  of  the  kingdom  of  God. 

Luke  gives  the  reply  of  Jesus  thus  :  '  But  he  said,  The  things  is  Luke  27 
which  are  impossible  with  men  are  possible  with  God.'     Matthew  is 
more  definite  :  'and  looking  upon  them  said  to  them,  With  men  this  lOMat. l'c 
is  impossible  ;  but  with  (Jod  all  things  are  possible.'     Mark  :  '  Jesus  lOMaiu  -jr 
looking  upon  them  saith,  With  men  it  is  impossible,  but  not  with 
God  :  for  all  things  are  possible  with  God.'     The  habitual  manner  of 
Jesus  must  have  been  as  impressive  as  his  words.     Occasionally  it 
was  so  striking  that  special  mention  was  made  of  it.      Here  his  earnest 
gaze,  '  Jesus  looking  upon  them,'  is  noted.     AVords  which  we  often 
read,  or  hear  read,  coldly  and  carelessly,  fell  from  the  lips  of  Jesus 
with  solemn  emphasis,  change  of  voice,  of  attitude,  of  countenance, 
adding  force  and  dignity  to  what  he  said.     Did  Jesus  assert  that 
what  he  had  just  pronounced  impossible  was  not  absolutely  so,  but 
only  humanly  impossible,  and  that  God,  although  a  man  clung  to  his 
riches,  could  nevertheless  enable  him  to  enter  into  the  kingdom  of 
heaven  ?     That  Avould  simply  have  been  to  contradict  and  explain 
away  the  statement  he  had  just  before  deliberately  corroborated  by  a 
strong   hyperbole.     The  import   of   the  passage   depends  upon   the 
sense  given  to  the  expressions  '  with  men  ,  ,  with  God,'     By  taking 
them  as  equivalent  to,  '  to  men  ,  .  to  God,'  we  introduce  a  contra- 
diction.    But  '  to '  and  '  with '  are  not  synonymous.     Luther  renders 
the  word  '  bey  : '  '  bey  den  Menscheu  .  .  ,  bey  Gott,'  which  conveys 
the  idea  of  association  with  men  .  ,  with  God.     The  Greek  Avord  is 
jjara,  which  is  rendered  in  the  Authorised  Version  24  different  ways, 
but  never  as  '  to.'     When  it  governs  the  dative,  as  it  does  in  these 
three  passages,   it   is   frequently  rendered   '  with,'    in  the  sense  of 
Luther's  '  bey,'  as  in  the  following  examples.     '  There  were  ivitlt  us  -ii  Mat.  2r. 
seven  brethren.'     'To  be  guest  with  a  man  that  is  a  sinner.'     'That  n'Li'keT 
he   would   tarry  tvith   them.'     Following  human  maxims,  customs,  ^  '^"''"  ^^* 
counsels,  it   is   impossible  ;  but   with   God,  led   by   him,  it  is  not 
impossible  to  enter  his  kingdom  in  this  way  of  his  appointment, 
leaving  earthly  wealth  outside.     That  truth  flashed  upon  the  mind  of 
Peter.     He  and  his  fellow  apostles  had  indeed  entered  in  that  way 
the  kingdom  of  God.     '  Peter  began  to  say  unto  him,  ,Lo,  we  have  10  Mark  23 
left  all,  and  have  followed  thee.'     Luke  varies  the  words  :  '  And  Peter  is  Luke  2s 
said,  Lo,  we  have  left  our  own  (or,  our  own  homes),  and  followed 
thee.'     The  oldest  MS.  adds,  in  Mark,  the  additional  words,  '  What 
shall   we   have   therefore  ? '     They   may   have   been   inserted   from 
Matthew,  which  stands  as  follows  :  '  Then  answered  Peter  and  said  lo  Mat.  27 
unto  him,  Lo,  we  have  left  all,  and  followed  thee,  what  then  shall  we 
have  ? '     Earthly  wealth  being  excluded,  what  kind  of  riches  were  to 
be  gained  in  God's  kingdom  ?     Jesus  prefaced  his  reply  with  his 
accustomed  solemn,  '  Verily.'      He  would   have  them  believe  that 
the  words  he  was  about  to  utter  were  spoken  with  deliberation  and 
certainty,     '  And  Jesus  said  unto  them.  Verily  I  say  unto  you,  that      „    2s 
ye  which  have  followed  me,  in  the  regeneration  when  the  Son  of  man. 


218 


THE    KING    AND    THE    KINGDOM: 


[part  n. 


shall  siu  on  the  throne  of  his  glory,  ye  also  shall  sit  upon  twelve 
thrones,  judging  the  twelve  tribes  of  Israel.'  The  words,  '  ye  which 
have  followed  me,'  must  be  taken  in  their  fullest,  deepest  sense,  not 
as  denoting  a  simple  profession  and  badge  of  discipleship,  but  an 
actual,  lifelong  imitation  of  the  career  of  Jesus,  the  forsaking  of  all 
things,  the  taking  up  of  his  cross,  t'ne  hating  of  their  own  lives  for 
his  name's  sake.  Thereby  they  w^ould  become  fitted  for  pre-eminence 
hereafter,  taking  part  with  Jesus  in  the  judicial  responsibilities  of  the 
kingdom  of  God  which  he  came  to  proclaim  and  found.  A  state  of 
society  has  to  be  attained  so  intrinsically  different  from  that  now 
exisuing  as  to  amount  to  a  '  regeneration  ; '  Young  renders  the  word 
'  renovation,'  Then  the  '  Son  of  man,'  Jesas  as  the  head  and  repre- 
sentative of  redeemed  humanity,  will '  sit  on  the  throne  of  his  glory.' 
Xo  more  scorning  of  his  truth  and  person,  no  false  charges  of 
blasphemy  and  sedition,  no  plotting,  betrayal,  or  crucifixion,  but  an 
acknowledged  supremacy,  a  reverential  homage,  with  all  that  apper- 
tains to  regal  power  and  majesty.  Jesus  not  only  foretold  his  suffer- 
ings and  death  on  earth,  but  looked  beyond  all  that  to  the  glory 
which  should  be  given  him.  His  cause  woukl  surely  triumph  ;  the 
kingdom  of  God  would  be  established,  and  then  the  twelve  apostles 
he  had  chosen,  having  been  its  pioneers,  would  have  earned  a  high 
position,  ranking  next  to  Jesus,  and  holding  office  under  him.  ^Vhen 
redeemed  humanity  has  come  beneath  the  sway  of  Jesus,  the  changed 
conditions  of  existence  will  still  admit  of  conflicting  interests,  which 
■will  have  to  be  settled,  not  on  the  old  lines  of  physical  strife  and 
murder  legalised  by  the  name  of  war,  but  by  the  judgment  of  those 
whom  Jesus  shall  appoint,  who  have  submitted  themselves  unre- 
servedly to  his  guidance,  and  may  therefore  be  trusted  as  fit  exponents 
of  his  mind  and  will.  The  mention  of  '  the  twelve  tribes  of  Israel ' 
was  lull  of  meaning.  At  that  time  the  nationality  of  Israel,  as 
regarded  ten  of  the  tribes,  was  a  thing  of  the  past.  The  land  wa? 
ruled  by  strangers,  and  tiiere  was  no  king  over  Israel  or  Judah.    The 

1  James  1  epistlc  of  Jamcs  is  addressed  '  to  the  twelve  tribes  wliich  are  of  the 
Dispersion.'  Yet  Jesus  asserted  that  the  twelve  tribes  of  Israel  would 
come  under  the  rule  of  himself  and  his  apostles.  The  problem  of 
Israel's  restoration  is  dealt  with  by  Paul,  and  he  arrived  at  this 

i\  Roui.  liiN  conclusion  :  *  And  so  all  Israel  shall  be  saved  ;  even  as  it  is  written, 
There  shall  come  out  of  Zion  the  Dehverer  : 
He  shall  turn  away  ungodliness  from  Jacob  : 
And  this  is  my  covenant  unto  them, 
When  I  shall  take  away  their  sins.' 
That  is  a  spiritual  deliverance,  from  ungodliness  and  sins.     The 

9  Rom.  (j       apostle  argued  :  '  For  they  are  not  all  Israel  which  are  of  Israel : '  he 

insists  upon  the  proper  sense  of  the  word '  Israel,'  which  is, '  contender 

„     7      or   soldier   of    God.'      He    proceeds :    '  Neither,   because   they   are 

Abraham's  seed,  are  they  all  children  :  but.  In  Isaac  shall  thy  seed  be 

4  Gal.  28  called.'  Elsewhere  he  says:  'Now  we,  brethren,  as  Isaac  was,  are 
children  of  promise  : '  that  is.  Gentiles  with  Jews,  redeemed  by 
Jesus,  constitute  the  Israel  of  God.  '  The  twelve  tribes  of  Israel ' 
is  an  expression  which,  in  the  mouth  of  Jesus,  of  James,  and  of  Paul, 
has  a  breadth  of  meaning  beyond  that  which  they  would  have  given 

s  John  39  it  who  cried,  '  Our  Father  is  Abraham,'  to  whom  Jesus  answered, 
'  If  ye  were  Abraham's  children,  ye  would  do  the  works  of  Abraham.' 


PART  II.]         .1    STUDY    OF    THE   FOUE    GOSPELS.  219 

Not  only  to  the  apostles,  but  to  all  who  followcrl  in  their  steps, 
Jesus  held  out  an  assurance  of  recompense.  '  And  e^•ery  one  tliat  lo  Mat.  2s) 
hath  left  houses,  or  brethren,  or  sisters,  or  I'atlier,  or  mother,  or  children, 
or  lands,  for  my  name's  sake,  shall  receive  a  hundredfold,  and  shall 
inherit  eternal  life.'  The  Authorised  Version  has  after  '  mother,'  '  or 
wile,'  which  is  the  reading  of  the  Vatican  MS,  The  Sinaitic  MS. 
originally  had  '  houses '  where  it  stands  above,  but  the  word  there 
had  been  erased  and  inserted  by  a  later  hand  after  '  lands,'  so  as  to 
stand  last  instead  of  first.  Instead  of  '  hundredfold '  the  Vatican  MS, 
has  'manifold.'  Luke  now  stands  as  follows:  'And  he  said  unto  is  Luke -jit, 
them.  Verily  I  say  unto  you,  There  is  no  man  that  hath  left  house,  ^" 

or  wife,  or  brethren,  or  parents,  or  ehddren,  for  the  kingdom  of 
God's  sake,  who  shall  not  receive  manifold  more  in  this  time,  and  in 
the  world  (or,  age)  to  come  eternal  life.'  Here  the  Revisers  have 
altered  the  order  of  the  words,  making  them  agree  with  the  Sinaitic 
MS,  The  word  aion,  rendered  '  world  (or,  age),'  is  the  root  of  the 
word  aidnios.  To  be  consistent,  it  should  be  rendered,  not '  eternal,' 
but  '  age-during,'  as  it  is  by  Young.  Mark's  record  is  fuller  :  '  Jesus  lo  Mark  -i'^ 
said.  Verily  I  say  unto  you,  There  is  no  man  that  hath  left  house,  or 
brethren,  or  sisters,  or  mother,  or  father,  or  children,  or  lands,  for  my 
sake,  and  for  the  gospel's  sake,  but  he  shall  receive  a  hundredfold  now 
in  this  time,  houses,  and  brethren,  and  sisters,  and  mothers,  and 
children,  and  lands,  with  persecutions  ;  and  in  the  world  (or,  age)  to 
come,  eternal  hie,'  Here  the  Revisers,  following  the  two  oldest  MSS., 
have  omitted  '  or  wife,'  which  is  in  the  Authorised  Version,  and  they 
have  reversed  the  order  of '  mother,  father,'  according  to  the  Vatican 
MS,  The  original  reading  of  the  Sinaitic  MS,  omitted  the  thirteen 
words  from  '  houses  '  to  '  persecutions,'  and  also  '  for  my  sake  and  ' 
before  '  for  the  gospel's  sake,'  These  frequent  erasures  and  insertions 
by  a  later  hand  in  the  old  MSS,  indicate  great  care  in  revising  and 
collating.  The  evangelists  themselves  often  differ,  as  here,  in  the 
form  of  the  expressions  attributed  to  Jesus,  JMark  has,  '  for  my  sake, 
and  for  the  gospel's  sake  ; '  Luke, '  for  the  kingdom  of  God's  sake  ; ' 
.MatthcAV,  '  for  my  name's  sake,'  We  have  to  choose  between  two 
probable  explanations  :  either  the  exact  w'ords  of  Jesus  were  not 
caught  or  remembered  by  all  alike,  those  who  reported  them  caring 
more  to  convey  the  obvious  sense  than  the  precise  form  of  expression  ; 
or  Jesus  may  have  used  different  terms,  all  having  a  similar  meaniug  : 
'  for  my  sake,  for  the  kingdom  of  God's  sake,  for  my  name's  sake, 
for  the  gospel's  sake.'  Possibly  Jesus  was  in  the  habit  of  reiterating 
those  portions  of  a  discourse  which  he  wished  specially  to  emphasise, 
and  in  doing  so  varied  his  words  ;  he  may  even  have  combined 
different  modes  of  expression,  either  to  show  that  each  of  them  bore 
the  same  meaning,  as  those  above  quoted,  or  to  amplify  the  sense  and 
deepen  the  impression,  as  by  first  saying  '  manifold '  and  then  '  a 
hundredfold.'  Young  renders  Luke  as  follows  :  '  who  may  not  receive 
back  manifold  more  ni  this  time,  and  in  the  coming  age  age-during 
life.'  These  words  of  Jesus  import  that  his  promise  of  'age-during 
life  '  is  reserved  for  '  the  coming  age  : '  it  does  not  take  effect '  in  this 
time.'  Here  is  a  corroboration  of  the  conclusions  previously  deduced 
from  the  words  of  Jesus.  Wherein  the  'manifold  more  in  this  time' 
consists,  w^e  are  not  told.  Jesus  simply  assures  us  that  devotion  to  his 
■cause  is  more  to  our  advantage,  immediately  as  well  as  remotely,  than 


220  THE    KING    AND    THE    KINGDOM:  [part  n. 

all  else  \vhich  gives  to  life  its  comfort  and  its  charm.  The  apostle 
Paul  emphatically  and  rejoicingly  testified  to  that  effect.  Mark 
throws  in  two  words  omitted  by  the  other  evangelists  :  '  with  persecu- 
tions.'    Paul  had  his  full  share  of  them,  and  triumphed  in  spite  of 

3  ii.  Tim.  10-  them.  To  Timothy  he  wrote  :  '  But  thou  didst  follow  my  teaching, 
"  conduct,  purpose,  faith,longsulfering,  love,  patience,  persecutions,  suf- 
ferings ;  what  things  befell  me  at  Antioch,  at  Iconium,  at  Lystra  ;  what 
persecutions  T  endured  :  aud  out  of  them  all  the  Lord  delivered  me. 
Yea,  and  all  that  would  live  godly  in  Christ  Jesus  shall  suffer  persecu- 
tion.' He  does  not  say  that  believers  in  Jesus  will  necessarily  suffer 
persecution  :  the  expression, '  all  that  would  live  godly  in  Christ  Jesus ' 
denotes  the  entire  dedication  of  the  life  to  the  cause  of  Jesus.  The 
persecution  arose  in  consequence,  not  of  holding,  but  of  preaching  a 

5 Gal.  11  particular  doctrine.  'If  I  still  preach  circumcision,  why  am  I  still 
persecuted  ?  then  hath  the  stumbling-block  of  the  cross  been  done 
away.'     To  avoid  persecution,  it  was  only  necessary  to  cease  preach- 

u  Acts  22  ii^g,  or  to  preach  differently.  '  Through  many  tribulations  we  must 
enter  into  the  kingdom  of  Clod  : '  those  words  were  addressed,  not  to 
believers  generally,  but  to  '  the  disciples,'  and  the  expression  '  enter 
into  the  kingdom  of  God  '  is  identical  with  that  used  by  Jesus  when 
he  called  the  rich  ruler  to  follow  him,  first  giving  up  his  property. 
To  '  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God,'  to  '  follow '  Jesus,  to  '  leave  all ' 
for  'the  kingdom  of  God's  sake,  for  the  gospel's  sake,  for  Christ's 
name's  sake: '  these  seem  to  have  been  but  different  forms  of  ex- 
pression, all  denoting  the  entire  dedication  of  the  life  to  the  cause 
of  Jesus.  In  following  out  that  career,  there  would  not  only  be 
differences  between  one  and  another,  but  often  an  absolute  reversal 

V.I  Mat.  30  of  men's  relative  positions.  '  But  many  shall  be  last  ihat  are 
first  ;  and  first  ihat  are  last.'  The  Authorised  Version  stands  :  '  But 
many  that  are  first  shall  be  last ;  and  the  last  sliaU  he  first.'     The 

Kt  Mark  31  Ecviscrs  havc  adopted  the  reading  of  the  oldest  MS.  Mark  has  :  '  But 
many  ihat  are  first  shall  be  last ;  and  the  last  first.'  It  is  not,  many 
that  are  esteemed  first,  or  placed  first,  or  claim  to  be  first  :  the 
meaning  goes  deeper,  and  relates  to  the  actual  character  and  conduct. 
The  course  of  duty  involves  self-development ;  not  only  can  there  be 
no  equality  between  one  and  another,  but  there  can  be  no  fixed  status 
for  any  individual.  The  saying  holds  good  if  the  italicised  words  are 
omitted.  The  hteral  rendering  of  Matthew,  and  of  Mark  also  according 
to  the  reading  of  Griesbach,  Lachmann,  and  Wordsworth,  is  :  '  Many 
shall  be  first  last,  and  last  first.'  The  progress  is  onward  and  upward 
with  all  and  each  ;  all  may  run  well,  but  some  better,  and  the  best 
will  of  necessity  stand  foremost.  Every  man  also  musL  wait  for  his 
call  and  opportunity  :  our  tasks  are  varied,  and  there  are  appointed 
times  for  doing  them.  This  Jesus  illustrated  by  a  parable.  He  com- 
pared the  life  of  activity  in  his  cause,  which  he  had  been  speaking  of 
as  an  entrance  into  the  kingdom  of  God  or  of  heaven,  to  the  hiring  of 

rio  Mat.  1  labourers  for  vineyard  work.  '  For  the  kingdom  of  heaven  is  like 
unto  a  man  that  is  a  householder,  which  went  out  early  in  the  morning 
to  hire  labourers  into  his  vineyard.'  The  amount  of  wages  was 
„  2  agreed,  and  the  work  entered  upon.  'And when  he  had  agreed  with 
the  labourers  for  a  penny  a  day,  he  sent  them  into  his  vineyard.' 
Some  time  after  he  again  went  out,  found  other  labourers  unemployed, 
and  engaged  them,  not  fixing  the  wages,  but  telling  them  that  he 


PART  II.]         A    STUDY    OF    TEE    FOUR    GOSPELS.  221 

M'ould  pay  tliem  fairly.     '  And  he  went  out  ;\l)out  the  third  hour,  and  -'OMat.  3, 4 
saw  others  standing-  in  the  marketplace  idle  :  and  to  them  he  said,  Go 
ye  also  into  the  vineyard,  and  whatsoever  is  right  I  will  give  you. 
And  they  went  their  way.'     Three  hours  later,  and  also  six  hours 
later,  he  did  the  sauie.     '  Again  ho  went  out  about  the  sixth  and  the       ,,     ■> 
ninth  hour,  and  did  likewise.'     Once  more,  two  hours  later,  when 
there  remained  only  one  hour  for  labour,  he  went  to  the 'marketplace. 
'And  about  the  eleventh  hour  he  went  out,  and  found  others  standing;       „     i; 
and  he  saith  unto  them.  Why  stand  ye  here  all  the  day  idle  ?  '     The 
two  oldest  MSS.  omit  the  word  'idle,'  but  it  is  retained  by  Tischendorf 
as  well  as  by  the  Revisers.    The  labourers  replied  that  no  employmeut 
lias  been  offered  to  them,  wdiereupon  they  also  were  sent  into  the 
vineyard.     '  They  say  unto  him.  Because  no  man  hath  hired  us.     He       „     7 
saith   unto  them,  Go  ye   also  into  the  vineyard.'     The   Authorised 
Version  adds  :  '  and  whatsoever  is  right,  iliat  shall  ye  receive.'     This 
is  not  in  the  two  oldest  ^MSS.,  and  is  omitted  by  the  Revisers.     At 
the  close  of  the  day  the  projirietor  of  the  vineyard  bade  his  'overseer,' 
so  Tischendorf  renders  the  word,  summon    the   labourers  and  pay 
them,  Ijegiuniug  with  those  last  engaged.     'And  when  the  even  was      ,,    s 
come,  the   lord   of  the  vineyard   saith  unto  his  steward,  Call   the 
labourers,  and  pay  them  their  hire,  beginning  from  the  last  unto  the 
first.'     A  full  day's  pay  was  given  to  those  who  had  done  only  one 
hour's   work.     '  And  when   they  came  that  were   hired    about   the       ..     '•' 
eleventh   hour,   they  received   every   man   a  penny.'     Seeing   how 
liberally  these  had  been  dealt  with,  the  men  who  had  laboured  from 
early  morning  flattered  themselves  with  the  hope  that  they  also  would 
1)6  overpaid.     'And  when  the  first  came,  they  supposed  that  they      •,    i" 
would  receive  more.'     JSTot  so  :  nothing  beyond  the  agreed  amount 
was  paid  to  them.     '  And  they  likewise  received  every  man  a  penny.'      ..,    w 
Disapjiointed  and  discontented,  they  complained  that  they  were  not 
treated  fairly.   Why  should  those  who  had  done  an  hour's  work  iu  the 
cool  of  the  evening,  be  put  on  an  equality  with  those  who  had  done  a 
hard  day's  work  uuder  a  scorching  sun?     'And  when  they  received      „    nj^J 
it,  they  murmured  against  the  householdei-,  saying,  These  last  have 
spent  hut  one  hour,  and  thou  hast  made  them  equal  unto  us,  which 
have  borne  the  burden  of  the  day  and  the  scorching  heat  (or,  hot 
wind).'     To  one  of  these  murmurers  the  employer  gave  an  answer  : 
no  injustice  had  been  done  to  those  who  complained  ;  an  agreement 
had  been  made  and  it  had  been  adhered  to.     The  contract  having 
been  completed  on  both  sides,  the  labourer  had  simply  to  take  up  his 
money  and  depart.     '  But  he  answered  and  said  to  one  of  them,      „    i-,  u 
Friend,  I  do  thee  no  wrong  :  didst  not  thou  agree  with  me  for  a 
penny  ?     Take  up  that  which  is  thine,  and  go  thy  way.'     The  pro- 
prietor of  the  viueyard  had   no  intention  of  raising  the    standard 
price  of  labour.     He  had  simply  decided  to  put  those  last  engaged  on 
an  equality  with  the  first.     The  difference  between  the  amount  earned 
and  the  payment  made,  was  so  much  out  of  the  employer's  pocket,  a 
free  gift  Avhich  he  chose  to  make,  and  which  no  one  had  the  right  to 
gainsay.     '  It  is  my  will  to  give  unto  this  last,  even  as  unto  thee.     Is      >,    i5 
it  not  lawful  for  me  to  do  what  I  will  with  mine  own? '     Did  not  the 
complaint  proceed  from  envy,  rather  than  from  a  sentiment  of  justice? 
'  Or  is  thine  eye  evil,  because  I  am  good  ? '     Jesus  would  have  the      „    15 
parable  pondered  as  illustrating  the  saying  with  which  he  prefaced  it. 


222  TRE    KING    AND    THE    KINGDOM:  [part  ii. 

■20 Mat.  16  for  he  added:  'So  the  last  shall  be  first,  and  the  first  last.'  The 
Authorised  Version  continues  :  'for  many  be  called,  but  few  chosen. 
That  sentence  is  not  in  the  two  oldest  MSS.,  and  it  is  omitted 
by  Tischendorf  as  well  as  by  the  Revisers.  Alford  notes  that  it  is 
'  omitted  in  several  of  the  oldest  authorities.'  The  insertion  cannot  be 
attributed  to  a  copyist's  error,  for  the  two  sentences  are  not  found  in 
conjunction  elsewhere.  Possibly  some  early  commentator  thought  he 
discerned  in  the  allusion  to  a  free  gift,  the  principle  expressed  by 
Jesus  in  the  words  '  many  be  called,  but  few  chosen,'  and  inserted 
that  sentence  as  explanatory  of 'so  the  last  shall  be  first,  and  the  first 
last.'  How  frequently  do  preachers  and  commentators,  without 
venturing  upon  an  actual  addition  or  misplacement,  read  different 
passages  of  Scripture  into  each  other,  as  though  they  stood  side  by 
side,  instead  of  being  widely  separated,  and  thereby  lose  the  special 
application  of  each,  and  misinterpret  both  ! 

'  So  the  last  shall  be  first,  and  the  first  last.'  That  is  the  only  clue 
which  Jesus  gave  towards  the  interpretation  of  the  parable.  We 
shall  best  arrive  at  its  proper  application  by  keeping  close  to  the 
text  and  context.  It  was  delivered  as  an  illustration  of  what  must 
occur  in  '  the  reign  of  the  heavens,'  which  expression,  as  is  obvious 
from  what  precedes,  denotes  the  condition  of  society  when  brought 
under  the  sway  of  Jesus.  Only  his  disciples  and  followers  can  enter 
'  the  reign  of  the  heavens.'  To  them,  and  with  reference  to  them,  he 
spoke  the  parable,  which  followed  immediately  upon  the  answer  which 
he  had  given  to  the  question  put  by  Peter,  '  Lo,  we  have  left  all,  and 
followed  thee  ;  what  then  shall  we  have  ?  '  Jesus  made  no  distinction 
between  one  apostle  and  another,  but  placed  all  upon  an  equality  : 
the  twelve  should  sit  upon  twelve  thrones,  judging  twelve  tribes. 
And  all  who  devoted  themselves  to  the  same  cause  would  share  the 
same  lot,  would  be  recompensed  to  the  same  extent,  '  manifold  more  ' 
or  '  a  hundredfold,'  and  would  attain  to  the  same  perfection  of 
existence,  '  in  the  age  to  come  age-during  life.'  This  raising  of  all 
to  one  level  involves  of  necessity  the  readjustment  of  men's  relative 
positions.  The  status  of  society  generally  can  be  improved  only 
tiirough  a  process  of  equalisation  ;  in  other  words,  '  Many  first  shall 
be  last,  and  the  last  first.'  The  parable  was  spoken  to  illustrace  that 
truth.  There  is  absolutely  nothing  to  favour  the  idea  that  the  first 
became  last  through  their  own  fault  or  conduct,  or  the  last  first  on 
account  of  any  superiority  of  character.  On  the  contrary,  the  first 
laboured  throughout  the  day,  and  Jesus  was  careful  to  state  that  the 
last  had  been  idle  only  because  no  man  had  hired  them.  The  central 
point  of  the  parable  is  the 'penny,'  which  represents  the  amount 
required  for  the  proper  maintenance  and  comfort  of  a  labourer. 
That,  neither  m-ore  nor  less,  was  given  to  all.  A  similar  process  of 
adjustment  goes  on  in  'the  reign  of  God.'  Every  man  is  called  to 
exercise  his  functions  to  the  uttermost ;  and  at  the  close  of  the  gospel 
dispensation,  as  its  final  result,  than  which  was  the  object  of  its 
establishment,  all  within  the  kingdom  of  God  and  of  Christ  will  stand 
on  an  equal  footing,  the  perfect  life  being  secured  to  each  and  all 
alike.  Socialism  and  not  individualism,  the  general  welfare  and  not 
IDcrsonal  ambition,  a  higher  standard  ibr  all  and  no  sharp  contrast 
between  wealth  and  poverty  :  that  is  the  lesson  deducible  from  the 
parable,  the  very  spiiit  and  essence  of  Christ's  gospel.     We  must  be 


PART  II.]         A    STUDY   OF    THE   FOUR    GOSPELS.  223 

content  to  accept  the  kingdom  of  God  in  that  shape,  or  not  at  all. 
'He  hath  put  down  princes  from   fheir  thrones,  and  hath  exalted  ^  ^"'^c  ^^2 
them  of  low  degree.'     '  The  last  shall  be  first,  and  the  first  last.' 
That,  in  truth,  is  the  triumph-shout  of  Christianity. 

'  Every  valley  shall  be  filled,  3  Luke  5,  o 

And  every  mountain  and  hill  shall  bo  brought  low  ; 

And  the  crooked  shall  become  straight, 

And  the  rough  ways  smooth  ; 

And  all  flesh  shall  see  the  salvation  of  God.' 
The  salvation  of  hunumity,  not  of  individuals,  is  '  the  salvation  of 
God.'  In  face  of  this  great  work  of  the  regeneration  of  society,  how 
moiirnfal  is  the  question,  '  Why  stand  ye  here  all  the  day  idle?' 
And  how  pathetic  is  the  answer  :  *  Because  no  man  hath  hired  us '  ! 
Many  stand  waiting  in  the  marketplace,  ready  and  anxious  to  do 
their  share  in  Christ's  work,  but  hearnig  no  special  call,  and  knowing 
of  no  vineyard  in  which  to  labour.  From  doctrinal  religion,  as  by 
law  established,  and  as  preached  by  those  who  deem  themselves 
Christ's  ministers,  they  turn  away.  "What  a  blessing  would  it  be,  to 
themselves  and  others,  to  find  some  opening  into  the  kingdom  of 
God,  some  sphere  of  duty  lying  parallel  with  that  of  the  apostles  and 
first  disciples,  whose  sublime  act  of  self-devotion  and  renunciation 
not  one  of  us  in  ten  thousand  professing  Christians  feels  himself 
called  to  imitate.  Still,  in  lowlier  ways,  the  great  cause  may  be 
helped  forward  ;  and  when  truer,  clearer  perceptions  of  the  nature 
and  character  of  Christian  work  begin  to  dawn  upon  men's  minds, 
they  will  be  found  willing  to  sow  seed  in  gospel  furrows,  albeit  they 
may  not  profess  to  put  their  hands  to  the  gospel  plough.  "What  a 
work  for  Christ  and  for  the  poor,  has  that  noble-hearted  writer  of 
fiction,  AY  alter  Besant,  been  able  through  his  novels  to  accomplish  ! 
What  a  strange,  unexpected,  marvellous  development  and  sign  of  the 
times  is  the  '  Salvation  army,'  raised  out  of  the  workiug  classes ! 
What  a  hopeful  augury  fur  the  future  I  Give  to  the  leaders  of  these 
men,  and  to  the  men  tiiemselves,  a  purer  and  more  rational  theology, 
a  more  accurate  perception  of  the  real  nature  of  Christ's  teaching, 
and  of  that  kingdom  of  God  into  which  they  seek  to  enter,  and  what 
a  stride  will  then  be  made  in  the  right  direction  !  Christianity  has 
ever  been  a  motive-power.  Only  free  it  from  the  mass  of  errors  and 
superstitions  which  have  encrusted,  disfigured,  hampered  it,  and  it 
will  yet  change,  rule  and  save  the  world. 

When  last  in  Jerusalem  the  life  of  Jesus  had  been  threatened,  and 
knowing  that  the  chief-priests  and  Pharisees  were  bent  on  putting 
him  to  death,  he  had  retired  from  Judaea,  staying  at  Ephraim,  near  ii  Joimw 
the  wilderness,  with  his  disciples.     Now,  for  some  time  past,  he  has 
been  again  'on  the  way  to  Jerusalem.'     As  they  drew  nearer  to  the  i"  Lukeii 
metropolis,  Jesus  showed  no  sign  of  halting,  but  kept  in  advance  of 
his  disciples,  as  though  anxious  to  avoid  delay  and  indifferent  to  the 
risk  he  ran.     The  disciples  were  astonished  at  this,  and  although  they 
followed,  it  was  with  fear  and  trembling.    '  And  they  were  in  the  way  lo  Mark  32 
going  up  to  Jerusalem  ;  and  Jesns  was  going  before  them  :  and  they 
were  amazed ;  and  they  that  followed  were  afraid  (or,  but  some  as 
they  followed  were  afraid).'     Then  he  repeated  to  the  apostles  that 
prophecy   of  his  coming  sufleriugs,  death  and  resurrection,   which 


224  THE    KING    AND    THE    KINGDOM:  [paet  ii. 

10  Mark  33  t^Yice  befoi'e  he  had  delivered  to  them,  '  And  he  took  again  the 
twelve,  and  began  to  tell  them  the  things  that  were  to  happen  unto 
him.'     Luke  uses  a  similar  expression,  denoting  that  the  information 

18 Luke 31  was  restricted  to  the  apostles.  'And  he  took  unto  him  the  twelve, 
and  said  unto  them  .  .  .'  Matthew  ex])lains  that  he  arranged  for 
the  twelve  only  to  accompany  him,  and  in  the  course  of  his  journey 

■JDMat.  17-19  with  theiii  he  told  them  what  it  would  result  in  to  himself.  '  And  as 
Jesus  was  going  up  to  Jerusalem,  he  took  the  twelve  disciples  apart, 
and  in  the  way  he  said  unto  them,  Behold,  we  go  up  to  Jerusalem  ; 
and  the  Son  of  man  shall  be  delivered  unto  the  chief  priests  and 
scribes  ;  and  they  shall  condemn  him  to  death,  and  shall  deliver  him 
unto  the  Gentiles  to  mock,  and  to  scourge,  and  to  crucify  :  and  the 
third  day  he  shall  be  raised  up.'  Mark  adds  '  shall  spit  upon  him  ; ' 
instead  of  'crucify'  he  has  'kill  ; '  instead  of  'the  third  day,'  'after 
three  days  ; '  and  instead  of  '  raised  up,'  '  rise  again  : '  the  last-named 

10  Mark  ?,?,,  difference  arises  from  an  alteration  in  the  reading  of  Matthew.  '  Be- 
"^^  hold,  we  go  up  to  Jerusalem  :  and  the  Son  of  man  shall  be  delivered 
unto  the  chief  priests  and  the  scribes  ;  and  they  shall  condemn  him 
to  death,  and  shall  deliver  him  unto  the  (rentiles  :  and  they  shall 
mock  him,  and  shall  spit  upon  him,  and  shall  scourge  him,  and  shall 
kill  him  ;  and  after  three  days  he  shall  rise  again.'  Luke  inserts  an 
allusion  to  the  prophecies,  and  he  adds  the  words  '  shamefully  en- 

is  Luke  si-  treated.'  '  Behold,  we  go  up  to  Jerusalem,  and  all  the  things  that 
are  written  by  (or,  through)  the  prophets  shall  be  accomplished  unto 
the  Son  of  man.  For  he  shall  be  delivered  up  unto  the  Gentiles,  and 
shall  be  mocked,  and  shamefully  entreated,  and  spit  upon  :  and  they 
shall  scoui'ge  and  kill  him  :  and  the  third  day  he  shall  rise  again.' 
This  was  but  a  repetition  and  amplification  of  what  Jesus  had  pre- 
viously told  his  disciples  generally,  not  to  the  twelve  only,  for  it  is 

s Mark 82  stated,  'And  he  spake  the  saying  openly.'  Some  time  afterwards 
Jesus  had  again  touched  upon  the  same  topic.  Although  it  is  now 
mentioned  for  the  third  time,  it  is  with  a  repetition  of  the  statement 

18 Luke 34  that  the  declaration  of  .lesus  was  incomprehensible:  'And  they 
understood  none  of  these  things  ;  and  this  saying  was  hid  from  them, 
and  they  perceived  not  the  things  that  were  said.'  On  the  second 
occasion  a  similar  observation  was  made  both  by  J\Lark  and  Luke  : 

«i  j\ravk  32     the  former  :  '  But  they  understood  not  the  saying,  and  were  afraid  to 

'.)  Luke  45  ask  him  ; '  the  latter  :  '  But  they  understood  not  this  saying,  and  it 
was  concealed  from  them,  that  they  should  not  perceive  it  :  and  they 
were  afraid  to  ask  him  about  that  saying.'     Had  this  referred  to  the 

'.)  Mark  31  sayiug  ill  Mark  :  '  after  three  days  he  shall  rise  again,'  it  might  well 
be  that  the  prodigy  of  a  bodily  resurrection  could  not  be  anticipated  ; 
but  Luke  had  not  quoted  those  words,  and  the  saying  on  which  he 

y  Luke  44  commented  is  simply,  '  The  Son  of  man  shall  be  delivered  up  into  the 
hands  of  men.'     That  saying  the  disciples  did  understand  sufficiently 

17  Mat.  23  to  be  iiiadc  thereby,  as  Matthew  tells  us,  '  exceeding  sorry.'  And 
on  the  first  occasion  also  the  meaning  of  what  Jesus  said  was  so 

10  Mat,  22  evident  that  '  Peter  took  him,  and  began  to  rebuke  him,  saying,  Be 
it  far  from  thee,  Lord  :  this  shall  never  be  unto  thee.'  Jesus  could 
not  have  used  clearer  language  ;  so  anxious  was  he  to  make  the 
matter  plain,  that  he  told  it  thrice  ;  so  unmistakable  was  the  sense 
of  his  words,  that  one  of  the  apostles  tried  to  silence  him,  and  all  of 
them  were  grieved.     The  varied  expressions  in  Luke  seem  to  indicate 


PAKT  II.]         A    STUDY    OF    THE   FOUR    CWSPELS.  225 

a  difficulty  as  to  the  choice  of  words  wherehy  to  convey  tlie  sense 
accurately.  Luke  was  but  a  compiler  :  either  he  liad  before  him 
three  recorded  observations,  or  one  record  combining:  the  three  sentences 
which  he  has  handed  down  to  us.  No  matter  which  :  in  either  case 
the  reiteration  indicates  that  no  one  of  the  three  sentences  is  by  itself 
sufficiently  elucidatory.  First  we  have,  '  They  understood  none  of 
these  thino-3  ; '  this  is  modified  or  explained  by,  '  this  saying  was  hid 
from  them  ; '  that  does  not  convey  the  sense  with  perfect  accuracy, 
so  a  third  explanation  is  added  :  '  they  perceived  not  the  things  that 
were  said.'  On  the  previous  occasion  also  Luke's  narrative  shows 
the  same  hesitation  as  to  the  choice  of  words  proper  to  explain  the 
meaning,  '  But  they  nndcrstood  not  this  saying — it  was  concealed 
from  them — that  they  should  not  perceive  it.'  They  did  not  under- 
stand the  saying,  not  because  it  was  not  plain,  but  because  it  was 
concealed  from  them,  not  through  any  supernatural  influence,  for 
nothing  of  the  kind  is  hinted  at,  but  through  a  lack  of  perception  on 
their  part.  The  failure  to  comprehend  arose  within  themselves,  was 
owing  to  something  in  their  own  minds,  some  preconceived  notion  to 
which  they  clung,  which  this  declaration  shocked  and  threatened, 
which  they  dreaded  might  be  extinguished  if  the  matter  were  further 
inquired  into,  so  that  they  were  afraid  to  ask  him  for  fuller  informa- 
tion. The  disciples  regarded  Jesus  as  the  Christ,  that  is,  the  Messiah. 
He  had  justified  that  belief  in  him,  at  the  same  time  charging  them. 
'  that  they  should  tell  no  man  that  he  was  the  Christ.'  In  that  i,,  Mat.  20 
capacity  they  expected,  as  a  matter  of  course,  '  that  it  was  he  which  L>4Luke2i 
should  redeem  Israel.'  If,  instead  of  doing  so,  he  shouki  be  put  to 
death  by  his  enemies,  their  hope  was  vain,  their  faith  in  himself  mis- 
placed. They  dared  not  face  the  thought  ;  they  could  not  reconcile  the 
prophecy  of  Jesus  with  his  claim  to  the  Messiahship  ;  his  words  were 
enigmatical ;  there  must  be  some  mystery  connected  with  them  which 
they  could  not  solve  ;  such  a  saying  was  to  them  utterly  incompre- 
hensible, in  its  literal  sense  incredible  ;  it  might  be  a  figure  of  speech, 
a  parable,  or  be  susceptible  of  medication  in  some  unexplained  way  : 
anything  rather  than  admit  the  possibility  of  his  leaving  the  world 
without  having  restored  the  kingdom  to  Israel,  or  wrought  any  visible  1  Actso 
redemption  of  his  people. 

We  are  told  that  Jesus  '  learned  obedience  by  the  things  which  he  5  Heb.  s 
suffered  : '  that  statement  is  made  in  connection  with  the  mention  of 
his  death.  On  that  point  he  had  received  supernatural  instruction, 
Moses  and  Elijah  having  spoken  with  him  '  of  his  decease  which  he  :>  Luke  31 
was  about  to  accomplish  at  Jerusalem.'  Jesus  never  courted  death, 
but  shrunk  from  it  instincti\'ely.  If  in  his  three  years'  ministry  he 
did  so  much,  what  might  he  not  have  accomplished  had  he  been  per- 
mitted to  labour  in  the  world  for  another  thirty  or  forty  years,  up  to 
the  age  of  seventy  !  His  enemies  were  bent  on  preventing  that,  and 
it  was  not  the  will  of  his  Father  to  interfere  by  a  miracle  to  save  him 
from  a  premature  death.  All  that  Jesus  could  do,  be  did.  He  raised 
up  a  band  of  disciples,  to  whom  he  communicated,  as  far  as  they 
were  able  to  receive  it,  his  scheme  for  the  establishment  of  the 
kingdom  of  God.  He  chose  them  '  out  of  the  world,'  and  left  them  17  joim  g 
'  in  the  world,'  to  follow  out  his  precepts.  Had  his  life  been  pro- 
longed, he  woald  have  been  persecuted  to  the  end  of  it,  even  as  his 
apostles  were  after  him.    That  probably  was  the  thought  in  the  mind 

Q 


226  THE   KING    AND    THE    KINGDOM:  [pakt  ii. 

1  i.  Col.  24  of  Paul,  when  he  said,  '  I  rejoice  in  my  snffci'in,o-s  for  your  sake,  and 
fill  up  on  my  part  that  which  is  lacking  of  the  afflictions  of  Chi'ist  in 
my  flesh.'  jesns  himself  was  the  first  martyr  in  his  cause  ;  he  caiTied 
out  to  the  bitter  end  his  doctrine  of  patient,  non-resisting  sufferance  ; 
no  exception  was  made  in  his  favour  ;  he  left  an  example  that  others 
might  follow  ;  his  '  followers,'  in  the  true  sense  of  the  term,  must 
live,  as  he  did,  a  life  on  earth  based  on  maxims  of  the  heavenly  world, 
and  be  content,  as  he  was,  to  take  the  consequences.  All  that,  as 
yet,  was  very  far  from  the  minds  of  the  disciples.  The  ideas  pre- 
valent with  respect  to  his  coming  '  kingdom,'  led  them  to  entertain 
hopes  of  honour  and  aggrandisement.  At  the  very  time  Jesus  was 
foretelling  his  inevitable  doom  of  suffering  and  death,  some  about 
him  were  coveting  for  themselves  the  highest  and  most  dignified 
positions  in  his  kingdom.  Two  of  his  disciples,  accompanied  by 
their  mother,  approached  him,  with  the  utmost  respect,  bowing  to 

20Mai.no  him,  and  begging  of  him  a  certain  boon.  'Then  came  to  him  the 
mother  of  the  sons  of  Zebedee  with  her  sons,  worshipping  Jiim 
(bowing— Young),  and  asking  a  certain  thing  of  him.'  The  woman 
obviously  was  foremost  in  the  matter,  and  Jesus,  before  saying  yea 
„  21  or  nay,  naturally  requested  her  to  state  what  she  "wanted.  '  And  ho 
said  unto  her.  What  wouldest  thou  ?'  The  blessing  she  craved  was  not 
for  herself,  but  for  her  children.  They  had  perfect  faith  in  him,  and 
in  the  triumph  of  his  cause,  and  forestalling  in  imagination  the  time 
Avlien  he  would  sit  on  his  glorious  throne,  they  were  ambitious  of  the 
„  21  honour  of  being  seated  next  to  him.  '  She  saith  unto  him,  Command 
tliat  these  my  two  sons  may  sit,  one  on  thy  right  hand,  and  one  on 
thy  left  hand,  in  thy  kingdom.'  The  three  must  have  consulted 
together,  before  venturing  to  make  the  suggestion.  The  request  was 
based  upon  their  faith  in  Jesus,  their  reverence  for  his  character, 
their  attachment  to  his  person.      From  the  first  he  had  shown  his 

?,  Marie  17  appreciation  of  the  two  brothers,  for  '  them  he  surnamed  Boanerges, 
which  is.  Sons  of  thunder.'  Simon  also  he  had  surnamed  Peter — 
Rock  ;  and  to  these  three  Jesus  had  given,  and  continued  up  to  the 

!)Mark2      last,  spccial  Opportunities  of  being  with  him:    he  chose   them   to 

14  Mark  S3  witucss  liis  trausfiguratiou,  and  to  accompany  him  in  the  garden  of 
Gethsemane  ;  they  are  mentioned  as  taking  the  lead  in  expressing 

13  Mark  3  their  opiuious,  and  the  three,  with  Andrew,  once  questioned  Jesus 
privately  on  the  mount  of  Olives.  These  facts,  as  well  as  their 
surnames,  indicate  that  they  possessed  in  a  conspicuous  degree 
firmness  and  energy,  and  received  from  Jesus  peculiar  marks  of  con- 
fidence.    James  and  John  entertained  so  high  an  opinion  of  their 

9Lnker>4  Master's  dignity,  that  on  one  occasion  they  wished  to  call  down  fire 
from  heaven  to  consume  those  who  treated  him  with  disrespect. 
Having  cast  in  their  lot  with  him  ever  since  the  day  when,  at  his 
call,  they  unhesitatingly  left  their  fishing  boat  in  sole  charge  of  their 
father  and  followed  Jesus,  they  may  have  considered  that  they  were 
fairly  entitled  to  secure  for  themselves  whatever  future  advantages 
might  be  attainable.  AVould  they  not  be  so  much  the  more  devoted 
to  him  now,  if  they  could  be  assured  of  reaching  the  highest  possible 
position  under  him  hereafter  ?  Their  father  had  been  left  to  carry  on 
their  former  business  without  the  assistance  of  his  sous  ;  their  mother 
now^  was  urgent  on  their  behalf,  fondly  deeming  them  superior  to 
others,  and  firing  them  with  ambitious  hopes.     Matthew   describes 


PART  II.]         A    STUDY    OF    THE    FOUR    GOSPELS.  227 

hev  as  foremost  in  making  the  api^lication  ;  bnfc  the  tlirce  were  at 
one  on  the  point.     Mark  says  nothing  about  the  mother,  but  repre- 
sents the  t\Y0  disciples  as   making   the   request   themselves.     '  And  lo  Mark  35- 
there  come  near  unto  him  James  and  John,  the  sons  of  Zebedce,  ^^ 

saying  unto  him,  Master  (or.  Teacher),  we  would  that  thou  shouldcst 
do  for  us  whatsoc\er  we  shall  ask  of  thee.  And  he  said  unto  them, 
"What  would  ye  that  I  should  do  for  you  ?  And  they  said  unto  him. 
Grant  unto  us  that  we  may  sit,  one  on  thy  right  hand,  and  one  on 
f////  left  hand,  in  thy  glory.'  Both  evangelists  agree  that  an  eifort 
was  made  to  extract  a  promise  from  Jesus  without  first  disclosing 
the  nature  of  the  request :  Matthew  says,  '  asking  a  certain  thing  of 
him '  :  J\Iark  :  '  do  for  us  whatsoever  we  shall  ask  of  thee.'  They 
should  have  known  Jesus  too  well  for  that ;  he,  at  least,  knew  well 
what  was  due  to  himself  and  them,  and  refused  to  promise  blindly. 
And  when  they  had  made  known  their  wish  he  assured  them  that 
they  did  not  understand  what  it  amounted  to  and  involved.  'But -'o Mat.  22 
Jesus  answered  and  said,  Ye  know  not  what  ye  ask.'  It  was  not  a 
mei-e  question  of  granting  them  a  favour,  and  of  their  accepting  it, 
but  of  their  power  of  endurance  in  his  cause.  Were  they  able  to 
undergo  the  same  sutferings  as  himself  ?  '  Are  ye  able  to  drink  the  „  -22 
cup  that  1  am  about  to  dririk  ?  '  The  alteration  by  the  Revisers  of 
'  I  shall  drink  of,'  into  '  I  am  about  to  drink,'  agrees  with  the  render- 
ing of  Tischendorf  and  Young.  The  Authorised  Version  contiimes  : 
'  and  to  be  baptized  with  the  baptism  that  I  am  baptized  with  ? ' 
which  is  now  omitted,  not  being  in  the  two  oldest  IMSS.  Those  words 
were  probably  inserted  from  Mark,  which  stands  as  follows:  '  But  ]0M;irk:;s 
Jesus  said  unto  them,  Y"e  know  not  what  ye  ask.  Are  ye  able  to 
drink  the  cup  that  1  drink  ?  or  to  be  baptized  with  the  baptism  that 
I  am  baptized  with  ? '  The  drinking  from  a  cup  and  su])mission  to 
baptism  are  voluntary  actions  :  the  reference  was  unmistakably  to 
the  bitter  and  overwhelming  sorrows  which  Jesus  was  about  to  ex- 
perience, as  he  had  been  explaining  to  his  disciples.  Yes  :  these  two 
were  even  prepared  to  face  shame,  suffering  and  death.  '  They  say  20 Mat.  22, 23 
unto  him,  \Ye  are  able.'  And  he  knew  they  were  destined  for  that. 
*  He  saith  unto  them.  My  cup  indeed  ye  shall  drink.'  Here  again 
the  Revisers,  following  the  two  oldest  MSS.,  have  omitted  the  words, 
'  and  be  baptized  with  the  baptism  that  I  am  baptized  with.'  That 
is  in  Mark  :  '  And  they  said  unto  him,  We  are  able.  And  Jesus  10  Mark  29 
said  unto  them.  The  cup  that  T  drink  ye  shall  drink  ;  and  with  the 
baptism  that  I  am  baptized  withal  shall  yei  be  baptized  ! '  Beyond 
that,  Jesus  could  give  them  no  assurance.  Positions  of  nearness  to 
himself  were  not  matters  of  favour  and  arbitrary  bestownient  :  he  had 
no  power  to  promise  and  grant  them  ;  they  must  be  earned,  not 
forestalled  ;  they  were  reserved  for  those  who  best  could  fill  them. 
'  But  to  sit  on  my  right  hand  or  on  mj/  left  hand  is  not  mine  to  give :  „  40 
hut  it  is  for  them  for  v/hom  it  hath  been  prepared.'  Matthew  adds 
the  words,  '  of  my  Father.'  '  But  to  sit  on  my  right  hand,  and  on  20  Mat.  23 
on//  left  hand,  is  not  mine  to  give,  but  it  is  for  them  for  whom  it  hath 
been  prepared  of  my  Father.'  The  insertion  of  the  italicised  words, 
'  it  is  for  them,'  may  be  deemed  unnecessary.  The  Authorised 
Tersion  has  in  italics,  '  it  shall  be  given  to  them.'  Luther  makes  no 
such  addition  to  the  text,  nor  does  Dr.  Young,  who  renders  :  '  is  not 
mine  to  give,  but  to  those  for  whom  it  hath  been  prepared  by  my 


228  THE    KING    AND    THE    KINGDOM:  [part  ii. 

Father.'  The  effect  of  the  addition  is  to  prevent  the  reading  of  the 
word  '  but '  as  equivalent  to  '  except,'  which  Alford,  with  Chrysostom 
and  others,  admits  not  to  be  contrary  to  the  sense  of  the  original. 
Alford  says  :  '  If  however  we  understand  after  Init  "  it  shall  be  given 
hij  Me,'''  the  two  interpretations  come  to  the  same  : '  that  is,  if  two 
more  words  are  inserted  without  authority,  tlieu  the  previous  un- 
authorised insertion  will  not  obviate  the  probable  sense  of  the  original 
apart  from  any  addition  whatever. 

When  the  other  apostles  heard  of  the  application  which  had  been 

privately  made  by  James  and  John,  they  seem  to  have  regarded  it  as 

an  underhand  and  selfish  action,  ar.d  they  manifested  indignation 

L'o  Mat.  '24     against  the  two  brothers.     '  And  when  the  ten  heard  it,  they  were 

10  Mark  41    movcd  with  indignation  concerning  the  two  brethren.'     'And  when 

the  ten  heard  it,  they  began  to  be  moved  with  indignation  concerning 
James  and  John.'  They  certainly  had  not  raised  themselves  in  the 
estimation  of  Jesus,  who  had  told  them,  '  Ye  know  not  what  ye  ask,' 

;» Liii;e  55  as  oiicc  before  he  had  occasion  to  rebuke  them,  saying,  '  Ye  know  not 
^'^■^■^  what  manner  of  spirit  ye  are  of.'  Xow  they  had  also  drawn  down 
upon  themselves  the  deserved  reproaches  of  their  fellow  labourers. 
Jesus  took  the  opportunity  of  assuring  the  twelve  that  the  mode, 
method  and  surroundings  of  earthly  rulership  could  have  no  counter- 
parts in  his  kingdom.  Power,  pre-eminence,  lordship,  authority, — 
these  constituted  the  very  essence  of  human  government,  and  a  great 

■J..)  Mat.  '25  man  w-as  held  to  be  synonymous  with  an  arhitrarij  ruler.  '  But  Jesus 
called  them  unto  him,  and  said,  Ye  know  that  the  rulers  of  the 
Gentiles  lord  it  over  them,  and  their  great  ones  exercise  authority 
over  them.'     According  to  Mark's  wording,  Jesus  spoke  of  that  as 

1(1  Mark  42  Only  a  show,  a  mockery  of  true  rulership  :  '  And  Jesus  called  them  ta 
him,  and  saith  unto  them,  Ye  know  that  they  which  are  accounted  to 
rule  over  the  Gentiles  lord  it  over  them  ;  and  their  great  ones 
exercise  authority  over  them.'  Alford  notes  :  '  They  which  are 
accounted  to  rule, — who  have  the  title  of  rulers  :  literally,  they  which 
seem  to  rule,  or,  think  that  they  rule.'  By  introducing  the  word 
'  Gentiles '  the  translators  lead  English  readers  to  assume  that  the 
reference  is  to  heathen  nations  only.  That  is  not  so.  The  Greek 
word  efhnos  is  rendered  in  four  ways  :  '  Gentile,  heathen,  nation^ 
people.'  The  lexicon  defines  it :  'a  company,  body  of  men.  2  a  race, 
tribe.  3  a  nation,  people  ;  plural,  the  Gentiles,  i.e.,  all  except  Jews  and 
Christians.'  The  last  and  subsidiary  signification  is  the  term 
generally  used  in  the  Authorised  Version,  but  Dr.  Young  adopts  the 
term  '  nation,  nations.'     That  it  is  equally  applicable  to  the  Jews  is. 

7  LuUu  r,      clera  from  various  passages,  as  :  'he  loveth  our  nation  (ef/mos) ;  that 

11  .kiln.        Jesus  should  die  for  the  nation  (ethnous)  ;  and  not  for  the  nation 

^^'  ^^  {efhnous)  only.'     Luther  renders   the  passage  under  consideration  : 

'  die  weltlichen  Flirsten  herrschen,'  '  the  worldly  princes  rule.'     No 

•20  Mat.  2(;    such  domination  must  exist  among  the  discijiles  of  Jesus  :     '  Not  so- 

10  Mark  43    shall  it  bc  amoug  you.'     Mark  has  it :  '  But  it  is  not  so  among  you.' 

Freedom  of  thought  and  action  was  the  privilege  of  each,  and  their 

notion  of  superiority  must  be  the  reverse  of  that  prevalent  in  the 

world.     Voluntary  service  must  be  their  badge  of  distinction,  the^ 

20  Mat.  26, 27  spirit  of  humility  and  self-sacrifice  their  token  of  nobihty.     'But 

whosoever  would  become  great  among  you  shall  be  your  minister  (or,. 

servant)  ;  and  whosoever  would  be  first  among  you  shall  be  your- 


PART  II.]         A    STUDY    OF    THE   FOUR    GOSPELS.  '  229 

servant  (Gr.  bondservant).'     Mark  agrees  exactly,  except  that  instead 

of  'your  servant '  be  has  'servant  (Gr.  bondservant)  of  alL'     Great-  lo  Mmu  i.?, 

uess  with  them  nnist  be  synonymous  with  usefahiess,  and  pre-eminence  "*^ 

consist  in  an  entire  devotion  to  the  general  welfare.     That  was  the 

lot  of  Jesus  himself,  his  sole  ambition:  'even  as  the  Son  of  man^oMat. 2.s 

came  not  to  be  ministered  unto,  but  to  minister,  and  to  give  his  life 

a  ransom  for  many.'     Here  J\Iark  is  in  exact  agreement,  except  as  to 

the  first  two  words,  '  even  as,'  which  are  now  replaced  by  '  for  verily.'  lo  Mark  4.-. 

In  the  Authorised  Version  they  stand  '  for  even '  which  agrees  with 

Young  and  Tischendorf.     Alford  suggests  rendering  '  even '  by  '  also,' 

which  corresponds  with  Luther's  '  auch.'   There  is  nothing  to  indicate 

why   the   Revisers  introduce   the   word   '  verily.'      Alford    has    the 

following  note  :  'A  ransom  for  many,  h  a  plain  declaration  of  the 

sacrificial   and  vicarious   nature   of  the   death   of  our   Lord.     The 

principal   usages    (in    the   Greek  Scriptures)  of  the  word  rendered 

ransom  are    the  following  ;  (1)  a  payment  as  equivalent  for  a  life 

destroyed  ;  (2)  the  price  of  redemption  of  a  slave  ;  (3)  a  propitiation 

for.'     Jesus  was  not  then  directing  the  minds  of  the  apostles  to  the 

doctrine  of  '  the  sacrifical  and  vicarious  nature'  of  his  death,  and  to 

imagine  that,  is  to  take  away  the  force  of  the  words  '  even  us  '  or 

*  for  even '  or  '  for  also,'  which  indicate  a  possible  correspondence 
between  his  own  life  and  death  and  the  life  and  death  of  each  one  of 
them.  Taking  the  words  apart  from  any  particular  dogma,  thus 
much,  at  least,  is  clear  from  them  :  that  Jesus  believed  that  the 
sacrifice  of  his  life  would  result  in  the  ransom  of  many  of  mankind. 
It  is  not  said,  as  a  ransom  for  many  other  lives :  we  should  not  be 
justified  in  adding  those  last  two  words  ;  and  if  we  assume  that  to  be 
the  sense,  the  question  arises  :  Did  the  death  of  Jesus  prevent  the 
death  of  many  others  ?  On  the  contrary,  had  he  not  told  his  disciples 
that  they  would  have  to  give  up  their  lives  for  his  name's  sake  ?  The 
death  of  Jesus  was  the  price  he  paid  in  carrying  out  his  scheme  for 
the  ransom  or  redemption  of  mankind,  that  is,  for  the  establishment 
of  the  kingdom  of  (lod  among  men.  Is  it  not  equally  true  that 
some  of  his  apostles  and  first  followers  gave  up  their  lives  in  the  same 
cause  ?  And  is  it  not  equally  reasonable  to  say  that  they,  as  well  as 
he,  gave  their  lives  a  ransom  for  many  ?  That  is  but  equivalent  to 
the  well-known  saying  that  '  the  blood  of  the  martyrs  was  the  seed  of 
the  Church.'  Only  one  of  two  senses  is  to  be  attached  to  the  words 
of  Jesus  :  either  that  in  which  they  must  have  been  understood  at  the 
time,  or  that  in  which  he  obviously  intended  that  they  should  be 
understood.  Here  there  is  nothing  to  Avarrant  the  idea  that  the 
disciples  could  have  interpreted  the  saying  as  Alford  does  ;  nothing 
to  justify  the  inference  that  Jesus  taught  that  his  own  death  was 

*  sacrificial  and  vicarious '  in  any  other  way  than  the  death  of  his 
followers  might  be  so  termed.  Let  it  be  understood  that  no  question 
is  here  raised  as  to  the  truth  of  the  doctrine  alluded  to  by  Alford, 
but  simply  a  protest  against  importing  it  into  this  passage.  The 
words  of  Jesus  must  be  held  too  sacred  and  inviolable  to  admit  of  any 
other  ideas  than  his  own  being  mixed  up  with  them.  What  he 
designed  to  teach  at  the  time  of  uttering  them,  that  only  can  we  admit 
to  be  their  true,  full  and  proper  meaning. 

Still  pursuing  his  journey  towards  Jerusalem,  Jesus  drew  near  to 


230  THE   KIXG    AND    THE    KINGDOM:  [part  ir. 

IS  Luke  35    Jericho.     By  the  roadside  a  blind  mau  was  seated.     '  And  it  came  to 
pass,  as  he  drew  nigh  unto  Jericho,  a  certain  blind  man  sat  by  the 
way  side  begging.'     Is  it  not  strauge  that  after  eighteen  centuries  of 
Christian  teaching,  the  same  pitiable  spectacle  of  men  and  women 
incapacitated  from  work  by   blindness,  and  begging  in  the  streets, 
should  still  be  seen  ?     Surely  it  is  time  that  some  plan  should  be 
devised  for  maintainirg,  at  the  cost  of  the  community,  those  who  are 
so  totally  unable  to  engage  in  the  battle  of  life.     It  would  not  be 
difficult  to  provide  shelter,  food  and  raiment  for  all  the  helpless,  friend- 
less blind  and  cripples  who  now  are  left  to  depend  upon  casual  alms- 
giving, the  bauds  of  many  willing  to  help  being  held  back  through 
fear  of  the  deceptions  practised  by  professional  and  sham  beggars. 
We  build  prisons,  and  keep  our  criminals  at  a  heavy  cost,  and  lunatic 
asylums  for  those  who  are  dangerous  to  us  in  other  ways.     Surely  we 
ought  to  go  further  than  that.     The  blind,  the  lame  and  the  mute 
should  not  be  suifered  to  beg  ;  refuges  should  be  provided  at  the 
public  charge,  with  proper  supervision,  and  arrangements  for   the 
profitable  employment,  according  to  their  various  capabilities,  of  those 
who  are  shut  out    by  blindness,  lameness  or   dumbness   from  th^' 
ordinary  a^'ocations  of  life.     We  cannot  cure  these  unfortunates,  as 
Jesus  did  ;  for  that  reason  it  is  our  duty  to  succour  them.     But  as 
long  as  such  works  of  charity  are  left  to  private  individuals,  so  long- 
will  they  be  performed  inadequately,  sufficient  funds  not  being  forth- 
coming for  the  work.     What  is  admitted  to  be  everyone's  business  is 
undertaken   by  no  one  in   particular,  and  amid   the  multitude  of 
claims  for  help  the  most  pressing  are  sometimes  the  least  urged. 
The  want  of  our  age  is  precisely  the  want  of  the  age  in  which  Jesus 
lived,  and  which  he  sought  to  supply  by  proclaiming  and  inaugurating 
'  the  kingdon  of  God,'  that  is,  a  kingdom  of  Christians.     Not  yet  can 
r.  [L  V.  15,    it  be  said:  'The  kingdom  of  the  world  is  become  the  kingdom  of 
our  Lord,  and  of  his  Christ.'     They  are  not  ibunded  on  the  basis  of 
his  teaching,  but  make  their  boast  in  principles  and  modes  of  action 
the  very  reverse  of  his.      The   preponderance  of  national  force  is 
determined  by  war,  and  commercial  rivalry  rests  on  the  maxims  of  a 
science  of  political  economy  as  hard  and  merciless  as  the  warrior's 
sword.     The  need  of  the  world  is  the  same  as  ever,  the  times  cry  out 
■2  Tit.  14       for  '  a  peculiar  people,  zealous  of  good  works.'     That  was  the  ideal  of 
(A.  \.)  ^  Christian  community  in  the  eyes  of  the  apostle  Peter  :  '  But  ye  are 
"''^'(A.V)^'  chosen  generation,  a  royal  priesthood,  an  holy  nation,  a  peculiar 
people  ;  that  ye  should  shew  forth  the  praises  of  him  who  hath  called 
you   out    of    darkness   into   his  marvellous    light.'      The   Church, 
that  is,  the  assembly  of  believers  in  Jesus,  should  present  the  aspect 
of  a  select  family,  bearing  the  stamp  of  royalty  and  saintliness,  a 
nation  within  a  nation,  a  people  distinct  from  the  surrounding  world, 
a  body  animated  by  the  indwelling  spirit  of  Jesus,  moved  by  one 
sacred  impulse,  and  living  as  an  organic  whole  the  life  of  Jesus  among 
mankind.     In  the  formation  of  such  a  society,  the  nucleus  must  needs 
consist  of  disciples  round  whom  believers  can  gather  ;  such  disciples 
must  take  all  the  precepts  of  Jesus,  not  a  choice  or  modification  of 
them,  as  their  rule  of  life  and  action  :  thereby  only  can  they  become 
the  heart,  the  central  moving  impulse  of  the  whole  body.     Is  not  the 
existing  system  of  Christianity  defective  in  that,  its  initial  point  ? 
We  have  no  separate  class  of  disciples  living,  not  apart  from  the 


PART  II.]         A    ,^TUDY    OF    THE    FOUR    GOSPELS.  231 

^vorld  but  ill  tlic  midst  of  the  Avorkl,  in  contempt  of  all  worldly 
ambitions,  maxims,  ])olicies,  and  in  unfoiyned,  entire  subjection  to 
the  teachino-,  mind  and  will  of  Jesus.  The  men  recoji,-nised  as 
ministers  of  Christ  are  not  of  that  stamp,  nor  do  they  prof  ess  or  really 
strive  to  be  so.  Ask  any  one  of  them  whether  he  does  not  consider 
that  every  member  of  his  flock  is  as  much  bound  as  himself  to  obey 
every  precept  and  counsel  of  Jesus,  and  he  will  unhesitatingly  answer, 
Yes.  The  shepherds  have  placed  themselves  and  the  sheep  on  the 
same  level  of  duty.  Christianity  was  not  founded  upon  that  principle  : 
Jesus  chose  but  few  disciples,  taught  them  to  make  special  sacritices, 
to  expect  special  trials.  They  went  forth  in  his  name  and  spirit,  and 
gathered  round  them  multitudes  of  believers,  both  men  and  women, 
who  certainly  were  not  called  to  discii)leship  :  '  Arc  all  apostles  ?  are  12 1.  Coi-.  'in 
all  ])rophets  ?  are  all  teachers  ? '  If  those  who  have  claimed  to  be 
successors  of  the  apostles  had  been  so  in  reality,  discipleship  to  Jesus 
would  have  assumed  a  very  different  phase  in  the  eyes  of  all  men,  and 
the  universal  Church  would  have  been  taught  by  the  i)attern  of  a 
heavenly  life  as  designed  by  Jesus.  Under  the  existing  system  of 
Chm'ch  doctrine  and  discipline,  his  kingdom  comes  not.  ^Ve  have 
agreed  to  expect  salvation  in  the  next  world,  not  on  earth,  and  to 
regard  it  as  an  individual  concern  rather  than  a  social  question. 
When  the  jailer  at  Philippi  asked,  trembling  for  fear,  '  What  must  I  lo  Acts  31 
do  to  be  saved  ?  '  Paul  and  Silas  answered,  '  Believe  on  the  Lord 
Jesus,  and  thou  shalt  be  saved,  thou  and  thy  house.'  This  need  of  a 
'  common  salvation '  was  learnt  by  Dives  in  the  next  life,  and  led  Jude  3 
him  to  desire  it  for  his  '  father's  house.'  Ecligion  ceases  to  beaioLukeer 
merely  personal  matter,  when  we  come  to  realise  it  as  the  establish- 
ment of  '  the  kingdom  of  God.'  Not  through  prayers,  praises,  creeds, 
sacraments,  can  we  be  saved,  but  only  through  social  progress,  for 
'  we,  who  are  many,  are  one  body  in  Christ,  and  severally  members  12  uo-.n.  5 
one  of  another.'  The  Christian  community  needs  to  be  defined, 
restricted,  that  it  may  assume  a  bodily  shape  and  perform  the 
functions  of  a  living  organism.  At  present  it  is  formless,  a  vague 
monstrosity,  supposed  to  be  here,  there,  everywhere,  each  individual 
in  the  nation  having  an  equal  claim  to  membership.  Thence  it 
comes  to  pass  that  the  national  career  is  held  to  be  identical  with  the 
career  of  Christianity,  the  earthly  is  blended  with  the  heavenly,  the 
State  with  the  Church,  the  precepts  of  Jesus  with  the  maxims  of  the 
world,  the  spirit  of  war  and  aggrandisement  with  the  gospel  of  peace 
and  self-sacrifice.  This  worthless  and  deceptive  amalgam  of  the 
human  with  the  divine  is  not  Christianity,  and  is  altogether  out  of 
harmony  with  the  scheme  of  its  Founder.  Let  us  go  back  to  that. 
If  those  who  profess  to  be  our  heavenly  guides  become  truly  '  apostolic,' 
disciples  of  Jesus  as  separate  from  the  world  and  as  hostile  to  its 
spirit  as  were  the  twelve  who  first  proclaimed  the  gospel  of  peace, 
what  a  transformation  of  society  may  be  brought  about  by  their 
example  and  their  teaching  !  The  ideal  of  an  apostolic  hfe  is  not  too 
high  for  Ministers  generally.  The  Church  of  Rome  has  gone  beyond 
it,  requiring  every  ]3riest  to  be  a  celibate.  Jesus  never  made  that  an 
indispensable  condition  of  discipleship,  but  the  relinquishment  of 
property  and  the  laying  up  instead  of  treasure  in  the  heavens,  he  did. 
Possibly  it  was  the  vow  of  poverty  which  led  to  the  enforced 
relinquishment  of  marriage  :  for  it  might  be  deemed  better  not  to 


232  THE   KING    AND    THE    KINCWOM:  [pakt  ii. 

marry  than  to  leave  wife  and  children  without  adequate  means  of 
support.  At  least  it  must  be  assmned  that  the  decree  of  celibacy 
must  have  originated  in  some  high  and  good  motive.  But  it  was 
none  the  less  an  error  of  judgment,  a  mistaken  attempt  (how  many 
such  have  there  been  !)  to  improve  on  the  method  of  Jesus.  He 
desired  that  his  followers  should  rely  upon  the  sense  of  justice  and 
obligation  in  those  to  whom  they  ministered.     He  taught  them  that 

10  Luke  7  '  the  labourer  is  worthy  of  his  hire,'  and  he  appealed  to  them  as  to 
whether  their  experience  had  not  justified  the  spirit  of  reliance  he 

2-2  Luke  35  had  iuculcatcd  :  '  When  I  seat  you  forth  without  purse,  and  wallet, 
and   shoes,   lacked  ye   anything  ?    and  they  said.  Nothing.'     The 

2ii.  Tim.  6    apostlc  Paul  laid  down  the  maxim  :  '  Tlie  husliandman  that  laboureth 

9  i.  Cor.  14  must  be  the  first  to  partake  of  the  fruits ;'  and  he  declared  :  '  Even  so 
did  the  Lord  ordain  that  they  which  proclaim  the  gospel  should  live 
of  the  gospel.'      That  did  not  prevent  him  from  insisting  that  a 

3i.  Tim.  2  bishop  luust  be,  not  only  'without  reproach,'  but  also  'the  husband 
of  one  wife  ; '  and  that  those  to  be  appointed  '  elders  '  should  be 

1  Tit.  6  family  men  :  '  If  any  man  is  blameless,  the  husband  of  one  wife, 
having  children  that  believe.'  It  may  be  a  question  open  to  dis- 
cussion, whether  the  Church  of  Christ  will  always  require  a  body  of 
'apostles,'  'disciples,'  'bishops,'  'elders,'  'overseers,'  or  by  what- 
ever other  name  those  who  take  the  foremost  places  are  designated  ; 
Itut  so  long  as  they  exist,  and  claim  to  be  ministers  of  Christ, 
descendants  of  the  apostles,  they  are  tied  down  to  these  rules  of  life, 
and  lire  no  true  shepherds  of  the  sheep  whilst  they  infringe  them. 
There  is  nothing  in  the  New  Testament  to  justiiy  the  holding  of 
wealth  by  the  professed  '  disciples '  of  Jesus.  It  might  be  well  for 
archl)ishops  and  bishops  to  take  the  huge  incomes  they  inherit,  if 
only  they  would  spend  the  whole  of  them  in  the  cause  to  which  they 
have  professedly  devoted  themseh'es,  and  let  the  world  know  and 
see  that  they  are  doing  so.  It  might  be  well  to  retain  the  services 
of  men  of  learning,  as  preachers  or  otherwise,  endowing  them  liberally 
without  requiring  them  to  give  up  all  for  Christ's  sake,  if  only  they 
would  abate  their  pretensions  of  apostolical  descent,  and  take  their 
place  among  laymen.  In  the  rank  and  file  of  the  ministry  there 
arc  comparatively  few  overpaid,  and  the  majority  are  sadly 
underpaid.  It  would  be  no  sacrifice  to  them,  were  they  to  profess 
openly  their  adherence  to  the  apostolic  system  ot  living  'from  hand 
to  mouth.'  That  they  do  perforce,  every  day  of  theii'  lives.  What  is 
wanting  is,  that  all  who  claim  office  as  leaders  of  men  to  Jesus 
should  from  the  first,  deliberately,  in  the  sight  of  all  men,  renounce 
Avorldly  possessions  and  ambitious,  and  throw  themselves  upon  the 

10 Luke 7  charity  of  those  to  whom  they  minister,  'eating  and  drinking  such 
things  as  they  give.'  A  strange  counsel  that  I  Undoubtedly  :  yet 
not  more  strange  now  than  when  Jesus  first  gave  it.  It 
was  his  plan,  deliberately  formed  and  earnestly  insisted  upon  by 
him,  and  carried  out  to  the  letter  by  those  whom  he  sent  forth.  True, 
„  s  he  empowered  them  to  'heal  the  sick,'  but  that  was  in  conjunction 
with  and  subsidiary  to  their  preaching,  '  the  kingdom  of  God  is 
come  nigh  unto  you.'  To  men  animated  by  such  a  spirit  aud 
living  such  a  life,  an  influence  would  attach  which  otherwise  is  lacking. 
It  would  be  now,  as  then,  a  question  either  of  receiving  them  or  re- 
jecting them  ;  and  over  those  receiving  them  they  would  exercise  a 


PART  II.]         A    STUDY    OF    THE   FOUR    GOSPELS.  233 

power  of  direction,  of  cfuidance,  of  leadership,  which  would  suffice 
to  bind  together  churches,  that  is,  assembh'es  of  lielicvers,  not 
nominally  as  at  present,  but  in  reality.  Infant  baptism,  whit-h  is  too 
much  a  myth,  a  superstition,  a  fetish,  would  either  be  abolished,  or 
regarded  as  a  simide  emblematic  ceremony,  the  distinction  between 
the  churcli  and  the  world  becoming  as  evident  as  the  ilillerence 
between  their  respective  leaders,  far  too  wide  to  be  bridged  over  by  a 
sacrameutal  form  which  makes  all  Christians  in  name,  but  cannot 
make  them  Christians  in  deed.  "When  the  pastors  stand  out  separate 
from  the  world,  the  sheep  who  rally  round  them  will  be  distinguish- 
able from  others,  and  a  true  church  will  be  constituted,  instead  of  a 
professed  one.  The  organisation  will  assume  definiteness,  comjiact- 
11  ess,  homogeneity,  as  naturally  and  easily  as  did  that  new  and  strange 
outcome  of  our  times — the  Salvation  Army.  Is  not  the  marvellous 
success  attaching  to  that  movement  an  evidence  of  what  can  be 
accomplished  when  men  work  on  the  lines  of  self-sacrifice  and 
brotherhood  which  Avere  laid  down  by  Jesus  ?  He  trusted  not  his 
cause  to  priests,  Levites,  pharisees  or  religious  doctors  ;  one  only  of 
the  pharisaic  rulers,  Joseph  of  Arimathea,  became  his  '  disciple,'  and 
he  '  secretly,  for  fear  of  the  Jews.'  Must  that  experience  be  reiieated  lo  Joim  3s 
after  eighteen  centuries  .'  Be  that  as  it  may,  not  until  the  leaders  in 
Christianity  stand  aloof  from  and  above  the  world,  bearing  in  their 
hands  the  standard  notof  doctrinal  theology,  apostolical  succession  and 
sacramental  theories,  but  of  an  earthly  life  woven  to  the  exact  jiattern 
of  the  precepts  given  l)y  Jesus  to  his  disciples,  will  '  the  kingdom  of 
heaven '  be  established  upon  earth  ;  and  when  that  comes  to  pass,  the 
Church — the  Christian  community — will  become  a  recognised  brother- 
hood, seen  and  known  of  all  men,  '  a  peculiar  people,  zealous  of  good 
works.'  Then  it  will  be  understood  that  for  the  propagation  of  the 
gospel  men  are  needed,  and  money  avails  nothing,  the  first  require- 
ment of  every  ambassador  of  Christ  being  that  he  should  relimpiish 
property,  and  throw  himself  unreservedly  on  the  liberality  of  those 
among  whom  he  labours.  The  apostle  Paul,  who  was  the  first 
missionary  to  the  heathen,  acted  on  that  principle,  and  even  went 
beyond  it.  Ha^-ing  '  suffered  the  loss  of  all  things  '  for  Christ's  sake,  3  puii.  s 
he  speaks  of  himself  as  moneyless.  We  find  him  labouring  at 
Corinth  together  with  Aquila  and  Priscilla  :  '  because  he  was  of  the  is  Acts?, 
same  trade,  he  abode  with  them,  and  they  wrought  :  for  by  their 
trade  they  were  tentmakers.'  Writing  of  himself  and,  it  would  seem, 
of  Sosthenes  and  Apollos,  to  the  Corinthians,  he  says:  'Even  unto4i.  cor.  n 
this  present  hour  we  both  hunger,  and  thirst,  and  are  naked,  and 
are  buffeted,  and  have  no  certain  dwellingplace  ;  and  we  toil,  work- 
ing with  our  own  hands.'  Further  on,  in  the  same  epistle,  he  laid 
down  the  law  of  Jesus:  'Even  so  did  the  Lord  ordain  that  they  9  i.  cor.  u 
which  proclaim  the  gospel  should  live  of  the  gospel,'  adding  :  '  But  I  „  1.-, 
have  used  none  of  these  things:  and  I  write  not  these  things  that  it 
may  be  so  done  in  my  case  :  for  I'f  were  good  for  me  rather  to  die  than 
that  any  man  should  make  my  glorying  void  .  .  .  AVhat  then  is  my 
reward  ?  That,  when  I  preach  the  gospel,  I  may  make  the  gospel 
without  charge,  so  as  not  to  use  to  the  full  my  right  in  the  gospel.' 
From  the  Philippians  only  did  he  receive  any  payment,  and  that  was 
in  the  shape  of  a  purely  voluntary  gift :  '  And  ye  yourselves  also  ■*  Pi»ii-  ij.  1 
know,  ye  Philippians,  that  in  the  beginning  of  the  gospel,  when  I 


234  THE   KING    AND    TEE   KINGDOM:  [pakt  ii. 

departed  from  Macedonia,  no  chnrch  bad  fellowship  wifcli  me  in  tlie 
matter  of  giving  and  receiving,  but  ye  only  ;  for  even  in  Thessalonica 

4  Phil.  IS  ye  sent  once  and  again  unto  my  need  .  .  .  But  I  have  all  things 
and  abound  :  I  am  filled,  having  received  from  Epaphroditus  the 
things  fJiat  came  from  you,  an  odour  of  a  sweet  smell,  a  sacrifice 
acceptal)le,  well-pleasing  to  God.'  For  some  reason,  Paul  refused  to 
receive  help  from  the  Corinthians.     In  his  second  epistle  to  them  he 

11  ii.  Cor.  7-9  v/rotc :  '  Or  did  I  commit  a  sin  in  debasing  myself  that  ye  might  be 
exalted,  because  I  preached  to  you  the  gospel  of  God  for  nought  ?  I 
robbed  other  churches,  taking  wages  of  them,  that  I  might  minister 
unto  you  ;  and  when  I  was  present  with  you  and  was  in  want,  I  was 
not  a  burden  on  any  man ;  for  the  brethren,  when  they  came  from 
Macedonia,  supplied  the  measure  of  my  want  ;  and  in  everything  I 
kept  myself  from  being  burdensome  unto  you,  and  so  will  I  keep 
myself.''  Paul  gives  his  reason  for  that  departure  on  his  part  from 
12  the  rule  laid  down  by  Jesus  :  '  But  what  I  do,  that  1  will  do, 
that  I  may  cut  off  occasion  from  them  which  desire  an  oc- 
casion ;  that  wherein  they  glory,  they  may  be  found  even  as  we.' 
He  was  determined  to  make  the  impecuniosity  of  preachers  of  the 
gospel  generally,  a  test  of  their  sincerity.  He  admits  that  it  was  not 
quite  fair  on  his  part  to  relieve  the  Corinthians  at  the  cost  of  other 
churches,  and  that  in  so  doing  he  was  not  carrying  out  the  ordinance  of 

12 ii.  Cor.  13  Jesus,  and  might  be  charged  with  injustice.  'For  what  is  there 
wherein  ye  were  made  inferior  to  the  rest  of  the  churches,  except  it 
be  that  1  myself  was  not  a  burden  to  you  ?  forgive  me  this  wrong.' 
What  Paul  did,  others  could  do.  And  if  the  voluntary  impoverish- 
ment of  Christ's  ambassadors  is  possible  and  obligatory  when  they 
go  forth  as  missionaries  to  foreign  countries,  how  much  easier  would 
it  be  to  adopt  the  same  course  of  action  among  their  own  country- 
men !  The  scheme  of  Jesus  was  based  on  human  effort  and  human 
sympathy,  and  no  advance  in  Christianity  has  ever  been  made,  or  will 
be  made,  apart  from  them.  They  are  the  only  reliable  bond  of  union 
between  the  clergy  and  the  laity,  and  between  individuals  con- 
stituting the  Christian  community.  The  crying  want  of  the  Church 
is  unity  of  interest  and  purpose  among  all  its  members.  Some  great 
and  fundamental  change  is  required,  some  plan  of  reorganisation, 
which  will  give  form,  character,  definiteness  to  the  Church.  The  method 
insisted  upon  by  Jesus,  and  acted  upon  by  his  first  disciples,  would 
be  as  effectual  now  as  it  proved  then.  The  Master's  servants  will 
fight  best  with  the  weapon  which  he  placed  in  their  hands.  Unless 
they  wield  it,  and  trust  in  it,  they  cannot  conquer  in  his  cause.  The 
spirit  of  unworldliness  and  heavenly-mindedness,  carried  to  its  extreme 
in  the  shape  of  voluntary  poverty  and  self-sacrifice,  is  demanded  of 
those  who  claim  to  be  our  spiritual  guides  :  demanded  not  by  the 
fiock,  but  by  the  chief  shepherd  of  the  flock — Jesus  himself.  That- 
trutli  seems  to  have  been  lost  sight  of.     Tiie  clergy  do  not  regard  it  as 

3 Phil.  14  their  special  duty  and  privilege,  a  condition  attached  to  their  'high 
calling  of  God  in  Christ  Jesus.'  Poverty  they  are  content  to  accept, 
if  need  be,  as  an  accident  of  their  lives,  but  not  as  a  ruling  principle  of 
their  conduct.  The  laity,  immersed  in  worldly  affairs  as  the  prime 
necessity  of  their  existence,  must  needs  feel  that  such  precepts  are  not 
for  them.  For  Avhom  then  ?  For  all  in  general,  and  no  one  in  par- 
ticular ?     For  each  individual  Christian,  as  far  as  he  may  choose  to 


PART  II.]         A    tiTUDY    OF    THE    FOUR    GOi^l'FLS.  235 

apply  them  and  act  U])OU  them,  and  no  further  ?  That  is  what  our 
want  of  perception  and  looseness  of  thought  have  led  to.  These 
solemn  and  reiterated  exhortations  of  Jesus  to  his  disciples  have  come 
to  be  held  nugatory,  ineffective,  visionary,  well  nigh  obsolete,  alto- 
gether impracticable  ;  they  are  regarded  as  counsels  of  a  perfection 
which  is  unattainable,  undesirable  in  this  life,  principles  of  action  too 
high  ibr  ordinary  mortals,  and  not  specially  binding  upon  any  class. 
AVhy  then  did  Jesus  utter  them  ?  Was  he  a  mere  dreamer  of  dreams, 
an  enthusiast  counselling  the  impossible  ?  Not  so,  surely  !  These 
rules  of  life  were  laid  down  in  all  sober  seriousness,  and  only  a  careful 
and  discriminating  study  of  the  gospels  and  epistles  is  needed  to  make 
evident  their  application.  They  are  the  heritage  of  professed  disciples, 
men  Avilling  to  throw  away  their  fortunes  and  hazard  their  lives  for 
the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus.  With  such  men  for  leaders,  and  not 
without  them,  the  Church  of  Christ  Avill  grow  and  prosper.  They 
will  possess  a  power  of  organisation,  control,  direction,  which  can. 
be  enforced  by  uo  statutes  and  maintained  by  no  formal  creeds  ;  the 
wealth  of  the — then— visible  Church  Avill  flow  forth  at  their  bidding, 
and  will  supply  every  need.  Not  more  willingness  to  give,  but  more 
system  and  unanimity  in  giving,  is  required  ;  and  not  by  almsgiving- 
alone  can  the  inequalities  of  society  be  redressed,  but  by  the  ceaseless 
overflowing  of  that  stream  of  sympathy  with  which  the  spirit  of  Jesus 
mustneeds  flood  his  true  Church,  making  the  welfare  of  each  the  concern 
of  all,  and  uplifting,  by  just  and  fair  dealing,  the  degraded  masses 
now  forming  the  lower  stratum  of  society  to  the  dignity  of  Christian 
brotherhood.  The  lesser  works  of  charity  are  bound  up  Avith  that 
greater  one,  in  comparison  with  Avhich  it  will  be  a  small  thing  to 
obviate  for  ever  the  sad  spectacle  of  blind  men  sitting  by  the  Avayside 
begging. 

Upon  the  ears  of  this  blind  man  there  fell  the  sound  of  the  passing 
croAvd,  leading  him  to  enquire  the  cause  of  such  an  unusual  gathering. 
'And  hearing  a  multitude  going  by,  he  inquired  AA'hat  this  meant  ?  '  is  Luke  sc 
On  learning   that   the  Avell-known    Teacher  Avas  about  to  pass,  he 
instantly  cried  out,  addressing  him  byname,  as  the  expected  Messiah, 
and  beseeching  his  compassion.     '  And  they  told  him,  that  Jesus  of     „    st,  cf 
Nazareth  passed  by.     And  he  cried,  saying,  Jesus,  thou  son  of  David, 
have  mercy  on  me.'     Those  foremost  in  the  procession  reproved  the 
clamouring  man,  hoping  to  silence  him.     '  And  they  that  went  before      „     3i> 
rebuked  him,  that  he  should  hold  his  peace.'     This  effort  of  theirs 
may  be  taken  as  an  indication  that  Jesus  shoAved  an  aversion  to  all 
needless  commotion,  and  that  those  about  him  were  aAA'are  of  the  im- 
portance of  making  his  progress  from  place  to  place  as  quiet  and 
undemonstrative  as  possible.    Wherever  there  is  a  croAvd,  not  much  is 
AA-anted  to  create  disturbance.     Jesus  Avas  now  performing  a  journey 
Avhich  involved  considerable  hazard  to  himself  and  his  disciples,  so 
much  so,  that  at  its  commencement  '  they  that  folloAved  Avere  afraid.'  ^'^  ^'''^'"'-  "- 
The  nearer  they  drew  to  Jerusalem,  the  greater  became  the  peril. 
Openly  to  hail  him  in  the  way  as  '  the  Son  of  David,'  Avas  to  play  into 
the  hands  of  his   enemies,  whose   emissaries   might   even   noAV    be 
among  them,  watching  for  anything  on  Avhich  to  found  an  accusation 
against  him.     But  the  effort  to  subdue  the  enthusiastic  outcry  of  the 
blind  man  was  futile  :  '  But  he  cried  out  the  more  a  great  deal,  Thou  ^^  ^uk?  so 
Son  of  David,  have  mercy  on  me.'     It  reached  the  ears  of  Jesus,  Avho 


236  TUE    KING    AND    THE   KINGDOM:  [part  ii. 

at  once  halted,  and  desired  that  the  man  should  be  conducted  to  him. 

IS  Lnke  40  '  And  Jcsus  stood,  and  commanded  him  to  be  brought  unto  him.' 
Then  the  kindly  voice  of  this  to  him  invisible  benefactor  entered 
„  41  the  blind  man's  ears  :  '  and  when  he  was  come  near,  he  asked  him, 
What  wilt  thou  that  I  should  do  unto  thee  ?'  The  man's  brief 
answer  proved  that  he  doubted  not  the  power  of  Jesus,  marvellous  as 
„  41  was  the  boon  he  craved.  '  And  he  said,  Lord  (Sir — Young),  that  I 
may  receive  my  sight.'  Nothing  was  needed  now  but  the  mighty 
„  4-2  word  of  Jesus.  'And  Jesus  said  unto  him.  Receive  thy  sight.' 
„  4-2  But  he  added,  as  he  was  wont  to  do  :  '  thy  faith  hath  made  thee 
whole  (or,  saved  thee),'  and  we  must  not  venture  to  overlook  or 
explain  away  those  words.  They  signify  that  the  faith  of  the  man 
Avas  quite  as  necessary,  to  say  the  least,  to  the  performance  of  the 
miracle,  as  was  the  volition  of  Jesus  :  indeed,  he  attributes  the  cure 
entirely  to  the  faith.  All  the  instances  of  healing  by  Jesus,  or  by 
those  to  whom  he  communicated  a  similar  gift,  were  obviously  per- 
formed under  certain  conditions  ;  they  were  not  scattered  broadcast  ; 
special  application  had  always  to  be  made,  either  by  the  afflicted 
person  or  by  some  one  on  his  behalf ;  as  a  general  rule,  but  not 
Avithout  exception,  physical  contact  occurred,  and  was  essential, 
between  the  healer  and  the  healed.  Jesus  touched,  or  he  Avas  touched, 
and  sometimes  much  more  than  a  touch  appears  to  have  been  needed, 
as  Avhen  he  anointed  the  eyes  of  the  blind  man  Avith  clay  mixed  with  his 
saliva,  and  Avhen  he  placed  his  fingers  in  the  ears  of  the  deaf,  the 
sufferer  AA'as  brought  somehow  into  relation  Avith  his  benefactor:  a  few 
Avords  exchanged  between  them,  or  even  a  look,  might  suffice  ;  and 
Jesus  occasionally  impressed  upon  those  he  healed  the  fact  that  their 
own  faith  had  much,  if  not  everything,  to  do  Avith  the  working  of  the 
miracle.     The  same  law  acted  subsequently,  and  was  so  Avidely  recog- 

5  Acts  la  nised  that  '  they  even  carried  out  the  sick  into  the  streets,  and  laid 
them  on  beds  and  couches,  that,  as  Peter  came  by,  at  the  least  his 

inActsu, 12  shadow  might  overshadow  some  of  them.'  "We  are  told  that  'God 
wrought  special  miracles  by  the  hands  of  Paul :  insomuch  that  unto 
the  sick  Avere  carried  aAvay  from  his  body  handkerchiefs  or  aprons, 
and  the  diseases  departed  from  them,  and  the  evil  spirits  Avent  out.' 
Not  without  a  reason  did  Peter,  before  curing  the  cripple,  fasten  his 

3  Acts  4       eyes  upon  him,  Avith  John,  and  say,  '  Look  on  us  ; '  and  when  Paul 

14  Acts  9, 10  healed  a  similar  case  of  lameness,  we  read  of  his  '  fastening  his  eyes 

upon  him,  and  seeing  that  he  had  faith  to  be  made  Avhole,  said  AA'ith  a 
loud  voice,  Stand  upright  on  thy  feet.'  Such  facts  indicate  the 
existence  of  some  occult  law  of  our  being,  some  blending  of  the 
spiritual  Avith  the  bodily  powers,  some  kind  of  animal  magnetism,  subtle 
electric  force,  or  Avhatever  else  it  may  be — Ave  know  not — which  can 
be  brought  into  action  under  certain  circumstances,  conditions, 
limitations,  but  Avhich  being  altogether  unusual  and  as  yet  undefined 
by  science,  Ave  term  miraculous. 

The  cure  of  the  blind  man  Avas  instantaneous  and  complete.  No 
longer  compelled  to  remain  helplessly  inactive,  to  be  led  like  a  child, 
or  grope  his  sIoav,  uncertain  way  in  doubt,  dread  and  darkness,  he  Avas 
able  to  enter  the  surging  croAvd  and  take  his  place  in  the  procession 
Avhicli  he  had  heard,  indeed,  but  had  never  hoped  to  see  and  join. 

15  Luke  43    '  And  immediately  he  recei\'ed  his  sight,  and  followed  him.'     With 

joy  and  thankfulness,  yet  not  in  silence  :  still  his  voice  uprose,  no 


PART  II.]         .1    STUDY    OF    THE   FOUR    GOSPELS.  237 

lone:er  ill  ])itifiil  entreaty,  l)ut  in  devout  tluuiksj^iving' :  '  glorifyinij;  is  i.uko  43 
God.'     The  cntliiisiastic  admiration  of  the  crowd  rose  to  the  same 
level  :  as  they  marched  forward  a  chant  of  praise  was  sounded  out,  a 
triumpli-shuut  of  adorin";  o-ratitude  for  tliis  manifestation  of  (Jod-h'ke 
power  and  mercy.     '  And  all  the  people,  when  they  saw  it,  i^ave  praise       ..     4:; 
unto  God.'     Here  was  Jesus  of  Nazareth  in  their  midst,  who  had  thus 
repeatedly  transformed  into  an  actual  reality  of  lii'e  the    titiurative 
lang-uane  of  the  prophet :  '  Then  the  eyes  of  the  blind  shall  l)e  opened,  3.3  isa.  o,  0 
and  the  cars  of  the  deaf  shall  be  unstopped.     Then  shall  the  lame 
man  leap  as  an  hart,  and  the  toni>ue  of  the  dumb  shall  sin,i>-.'     If  any 
one  of  the  multitude  remembered  such  a  passage,  and  uttered  it  aloud, 
it  may  well  have  been  passed  from  mouth  to  mouth,  and  shouted  out 
in  solemn  cliorus. 

Luke  distinctly  states  that  this  miracle  was  performed  as  Jesus 
^vas  ap])i'oachino-  Jericho  :  '  as  he  drew  nigh  unto  Jericho.'     Either  is  i-uUc  s-^ 
the  same  or  a  similar  miracle  is  described  by  ifark  as  happening  on 
the  departure  of  Jesus  from  Jericho  :  '  And  they  come  to  Jericho.  10  ihuu  40 
And  as  he  went  out  from   Jericho,  with  his  disciples   and  a  great 
multitude,  the  son  of  Tim[eus,  Bartima^us,  a  blind  beggar,  was  sitting' 
by  the  way  side.'     This  account  was  evidently  obtained  at  first  hand, 
from  one  who  had  full  knowledge  of  the  circumstances,  and  who  knew 
the  place  and  its  inhabitants.     Except  as  regards  the  locality,  the  two 
accounts  agree  perfectly.     Mark  stands  as  follows:  'And  when  he      ,.    47-c;: 
heard  that  it  was  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  lis  began  to  cry  out  and  say, 
JesMS,  thou  son  of  David,  have  mercy  on  me.     And  many  rebuked 
him,  that  he  should  hold  his  peace  :  but  he  cried  out  the  more  a  great 
deal.  Thou  son  of  David,  have  mercy  on  me.     And  Jesus  stood  still, 
and  said,  Call  ye  him.     And  they  call  the  blind  man,  saying  unto 
him,  Be  of  good  cheer  :  rise,  he  calleth  thee.     And  he,  casting  away 
his  garment,  sprang  up,  and  came  to  Jesus.    And  Jesus  answered  him, 
and  said,  AVhat  wilt  thou  that  I  should  do  unto  thee  ?     And  the 
blind  man  said  unto  bin:,  Eabboni,  that  I  may  receive  my  sight.    And 
Jesus  said  unto  him.  Go  thy  way  ;  thy  faith  hath  made  thee  whole  (or, 
saved  thee).     And  straightway  he  received  his  sight,  andlbllowed  him 
in  the  way.'     Here  are  several  graphic  touches,  which  must  have  been 
thrown  in  by  an  eye-witness.     Instead  of  saying  that  Jesns  '  com- 
manded him  to  be  brought  unto  him,'  the  actual  words  of  Jesus  are 
given,  '  Call  ye  hiir..'     The  encouragement  thereupon  ofl'ered  by  the 
bystanders  is  noted  :  '  Be  of  good  cheer :  rise,  he  calleth  thee  ; '  and 
the  impulsive  eagerness  and  alacrity  of  the  blind  man  :  '  And  he, 
casting  away  his   garment,   sprang  up,  and  came  to  Jesus.'      The 
somewhat  unusual  term  '  Rabboni,'  which  he  used,  is  given.     Alford 
observes  :  '  Eabboni,  i.e.,  Master,  or  ]\Iy  Master,  see  John  xx.  1(5.    It 
was  said  to  be  a  more  respectful  form  than  Rahhi  merely.'     These 
variations  may  be  taken  to  denote  greater  accuracy  of  detail,  rather 
than  any  inconsistency  between  the  two  narratives.     We  should  un- 
hesitatingly assume  that  to   be   the   case,   if   it  were   not   for  the 
discrepancy  of  time  and  place,  which  seems  to  involve  the  existence  of 
an  error  either  in  Mark  or  Luke.     To  an   unbiased  mind  there  is 
nothing  shocking  in  the  idea  that  either  of  these  honest  compilers 
should  unintentio7jally  misplace  a  fact.     There  may  have  been  many 
occasions  w'hen  either  Mark  or  Luke  may  have  had  to  exercise  an 
independent  judgment   in  grouping   the   materials  placed   in   their 


238  THE    KING    AND    THE   KINCWOM :  [part  ii. 

hands.  Imagine  the  diary  of  a  traveller  to  consist  of  scattered  notes : 
if  edited  long  after  his  death  by  aiiotlier  hand,  what  more  likely  than 
that  an  occasional  mistake  should  occur  in  the  sequence  of  the 
incidents  detailed,  or  even  arise  from  defect  of  memory  on  the  part 
of  the  original  recorder  ?  To  suppose  that  supernatural  assistance 
was  giveu  for  the  preparation  of  their  respective  histories  to  Mark  and 
Luke,  although  they  themselves  never  claimed  to  have  received  it,  is 
nothing  more  than  a  wild  freak  of  the  imagination,  however  much  it 
may  be  disguised  under  the  solemn  term  of  Inspiration,  and  worked 
into  certain  passages  of  Scripture  supposed  to  justify  the  doctrine. 
But  in  this  instance  it  is  quite  possible  that  both  these  evangelists  are 
correct,  and  are  relating  two  different  miracles.  Matthew  records  the 
departure  of  Jesus  from  Jericho  :  '  And  as  they  went  out  from  Jericho, 
a  great  multitude  followed  him.'  That  is  a  statement  by  itself.  Then 
it  is  added,  without  reference  to  time  or  place:  '  And  behold,  two 
blind  men  sitting  by  the  way  side,  when  they  heard  that  Jesus  was 
passing  by,  cried  out,  saying,  Lord,  have  mercy  on  us,  thou  son  of 
David.'  It  would  be  too  much  to  infer  that  the  word  '  and '  before 
'  behold '  of  necessity  means  that  this  happened  as  they  went  out 
from  Jericho.  Matthew  continues  :  '  And  the  multitude  rebuked 
them,  that  they  should  hold  their  peace  :  but  they  cried  out  the  more, 
saying,  Lord,  have  mercy  on  us,  thou  son  of  David.  And 
Jesus  stood  still,  and  called  them,  and  said.  What  will  ye 
that  I  should  do  unto  you?  They  say  unto  him,  Lord,  that  our 
eyes  may  be  opened.  And  Jesus,  being  moved  with  compassion, 
touched  their  eyes  :  and  straightway  they  received  their  sight,  and 
followed  him.'  Matthew  does  not  say  that  these  two  blind  men  were 
sitting  together  and  were  healed  together.  Blindness  was  so  common, 
and  every  wayside  so  suitable  for  begging,  that  it  may  well  have 
happened  that  Jesus  passed  one  blind  man  on  entering  and  another 
on  leaving  Jericho.  The  conditions  being  precisely  similar,  the 
results  would  be  equally  so.  Men  unable  to  see  would  naturally  raise 
their  voices.  If  one  had  sight  restored  on  the  entrance  to  Jericho, 
there  would  be  ample  time,  before  Jesus  left  the  place,  for  the  news 
to  be  carried  to  the  blind  man  at  the  other  end  of  the  town.  What 
more  natural  than  that  he  should  adopt  the  same  form  of  address  and 
method  of  attracting  the  attention  of  Jesus,  which  had  been  successful 
previously  ?  Those  who  wanted  such  outcries  stopped  before,  would 
be  as  anxious  on  that  point  now  :  if  Jesus  were  to  be  constantly 
hailed  as  '  Son  of  David,'  Jerusalem  might  be  in  an  uproar  before  he 
reached  it,  and  his  enemies  find  good  ground  for  apprehending  him. 
That  Jesus  should  stand  still,  call  the  man,  question  him,  and  cure 
him,  would  come  as  naturally  to  pass  now  as  on  tlie  first  occasion. 
Nothing  more  probable  than  that  two  such  miracles  should  happen, 
and  the  one  be  almost  a  counterpart  of  the  other.  The  similarity 
between  them  would  naturally  prevent  a  reporter  fi-om  giving  details  ' 
of  both :  he  would  either  choose  one  of  them,  or  combine  the  salient 
features  of  the  two.  Luke  found  and  preserved  the  account  of  the 
first ;  Mark  was  able  to  record  the  second  ;  Mattliew  related  the 
chief  points  of  the  two.  On  that  view,  the  differences  between  Mark 
and  Luke  are  noteworthy  :  the  latter  describes  the  man  as  '  brought ' 
to  Jesus,  adding  '  and  when  he  was  come  near,'  as  though  the 
approach  was  slow  ;  the  former  represents  the  crowd  as  anticipating 


PART  II.]        A    STUDY    OF    THE    FOUR    GOSPELS.  239 

tlie  miracle  :  '  Be  of  ,<>-ood  cliccr  :  rise,  he  calletli  thee  ; '  aud  the  man 
us  extremely  active  and  hopeful,  so  sure  of  a  cure  now,  that  he  caies 
nothino-  about  Icaviiii;-  his  robe  behind,  jumps  up  on  the  instant,  and 
makes  his  way,  unaided,  boldly  and  alone,  in  the  direction  of  the 
voice  of  Jesus  :  '  And  he  casting  away  his  <i-arment,  sprani>;  uj),  and 
came  to  Jesus.'  That  is  in  favour  of  the  idea  that  the  news  of  the 
first  miracle  had  travelled,  and  led  to  the  performance  of  the  second. 
The  words  of  Jesus, 'Call  ye  him,'  are  not  quite  synonymous  with 
the  expression,  'commanded  him  to  be  brought,'  and  would  seem 
rather  to  ha\'e  been  spoken  of  another  man  ;  and  whereas  the  one 
addressed  Jesus  as  Kurios,  '  Lord  '  the  other  is  represented  as  using 
the  word  Rahhoni,  '  Master.'  Such  differences  may  be  owing  to 
greater  facility  and  accuracy  of  obser\-ation  and  a  more  reliable 
memory,  possessed  by  one  of  the  reporters  ;  or  they  may  be,  as  seems 
on  the  whole  most  probable,  equally  true  to  fact,  and  descrijjtive  of 
two  difli'erent  miracles.  Dean  Alford  did  not  admit  that.  His  note 
is  as  follows  :  '  He  must  be  indeed  a  slave  to  the  letter,  who  would 
stumble  at  such  discrepancies,  and  not  rather  see  in  them  the  corro- 
borating coincidence  of  testimonies  to  the  fact  itself.  Yet  some 
strangely  suppose  our  Lord  to  have  healed  one  blind  mem  (as  in  Luke) 
on  entering  Jericho,  and  (mother  (Bartima^us,  as  in  ]\Iark)  on  leuvin(j 
if,  and  8t.  Matthew  to  have  "  with  his  characteristic  brevity  in 
relating  miracles,"  combined  both  these  in  one.  But  then,  what 
becomes  of  St.  Matthew's  assertion,  "fts  thei/  departed  from  Jericho  'f' 
Can  we  possibly  imagine,  that  the  Evangelist,  having  botJi  facts  before 
him,  could  combine  them  and  preface  them  with  what  he  mud  laioio 
to  be  inaccurate V  Of  course  not:  no  one  would  'make  such  an 
assumption.  It  is  Alford  himself  who  assumes,  without  warrant,  that 
]\Latthew  must  be  understood  to  mean  that  the  facts  recorded 
happened  after  leaving  Jericho,  which  he  certainly  does  not  say. 
Something  would  have  to  be  added  to  the  narrative  to  make  that 
clear  :  if  it  ran,  'And,  behold,  two  blind  men  who  icere  then  sitting 
l)y  the  way  side,'  Alford's  argument  would  hold  good  ;  but  without 
some  such  additional  words,  it  does  not,  and  he  is  not  justified  in 
insisting  that  the  sentence  must  be  read  as  though  they  had  been 
inserted.  Alford  was  not  careful  to  search  for  any  possible  way  of 
reconciling  the  three  evangelists  ;  he  saw  how  others  were  constantly 
at  work  toning  down  and  explaining  away,  in  a  very  injudicious 
fashion,  every  discrepancy  met  with  in  the  sacred  narrati\-es,  and 
against  such  a  task  he  resolutely  set  his  face,  and  uttered  a  strong 
protest.  "Without  troubling  himself  to  investigate  the  prol  (abilities 
of  the  case,  he  jumped  to  the  conclusion  that  of  course  Matthew  was 
^vrong  in  stating  that  there  were  two  blind  men,  and  he  made  this 
startling  assertion :  '  The  supposition  that  they  were  two  miracles 
is  perfectly  monstrous  ;  and  would  at  once  destroy  the  credit  of 
St.  Matthew  as  a  truthful  narrator,'  He  adds  :  '  It  is  just  thus  that 
the  Harmonists  utterly  destroy  the  credibility  of  the  Scripture 
narrative.  Accumulate  upon  this  the  absurd  improbability  involved 
in  two  men,  under  the  same  circumstances,  addressing  our  Lord  in 
the  same  words  at  so  very  short  an  inter\-al, — and  we  may  be  thanldul 
that  Biblical  criticism  is  at  length  being  emancipated  from  "forcing 
narratives  into  accordance."  '  In  a  '  Harmony  of  the  Gospels  '  con- 
tained in  '  Helps  to  the  study  of  the  Bible,'  issued  from  the  Oxford 


240  THE   KING    AND    THE    KINGDOM:  [paPvT  ii. 

University  Pj-ess,  the  accounts  of  ]\Iatthewand  Mark  are  given  under 
the  head  '  Healing  blind  Bartinifeus,'  Luke's  account  being  entirely 
ignored.  That  seems  to  be  an  instance  of  Avhat  Alford  called  '  forcing- 
narratives  into  accordance.'  Those  Avho  are  free  from  the  trammels 
of  the  Inspiration  theory  have,  on  the  one  hand,  no  temptation  to  do 
that,  and  on  the  other  hand,  are  not  afraid  to  consider  the  various 
ways  in  which  apparent  discrepancies  lying  on  the  surface  of  the 
narratives  may  admit  of  reconcilement. 

Matthew  alone  records  the  fact  that  Jesus  touched  the  eyes  of  the 
blind  men  ;  from  which  it  may  be  inferred  that  the  habit  of  healing  by 
the  touch  was  then  so  well  known,  that  the  recorders  did  not  always 
specially  mention  it. 

The  three  evangelists  agree  in  stating  that  the  blind  men  'followed ' 
Jesus.  That  expression  means  much,  although  it  may  or  may  not 
14  Lnkc  2.V  havc  bceu  intended  here  to  denote  a  i3rofession  of  discipleship.  "We 
^^  know  that  Jesus  on  one  occasion  turned  and  faced  the  crowd,  and 
pointed  out  to  them  what  the  true  following  of  him  involved.  Every 
one  cured  by  his  power  and  joining  the  procession,  thereby  offered  a 
kind  of  homage  to  him,  just  as  in  our  own  day  those  who  walk  with 
the  Salvation  Army  are  assumed  to  ally  themselves  Avith  the  cause. 

Jesus  halted,  for  some  hours  at  least,  in  Jericho.  Luke  relates  an 
incident  which  took  place  there.  One  of  the  inhabitants,  a  wealthy 
iM  Luke  1-3  tax-gatherer,  was  anxious  to  catch  sight  of  Jesus.  '  And  he  entered 
and  was  passing  through  Jericho.  And  behold,  a  man  called  byname 
Zacchfeus  ;  and  he  was  a  chief  publican,  and  he  was  rich.  And  he 
sought  to  see  Jesus  who  he  was.'  It  might  have  been  the  natural 
curiosity  to  see  what  manner  of  man  the  great  Teacher  was ;  but 
the  expression  is  peculiar  :  '  who  he  was,'  rendered  literally  by  Young 
*  who  he  is,'  seems  to  signify  that  he  had  some  expectation  of  being 
able  to  identify  Jesus;  it  is  possible,  for  instance,  that  Zacchjeus 
might  have  met  years  before  and  remembered,  the  young  carpenter  of 
Galilee,  in  whom  there  were  discernible  mysterious  presages  of  future 
greatness,  or  they  might  have  met  on  some  occasion  when  Jesus  was 
travelling  incognito,  '  and  would  have  no  man  know  it,'  and  Zacchteus 
have  been  so  struck  with  his  demeanour  and  conversation  as  to 
Avonder,  afterwards,  whether  he  had  not  been  privileged  to  associate 
with  the  great  Teacher  whose  fame  Avas  in  all  men's  mouths.  But 
Jesus  Avas  shut  out  from  sight  by  the  crowd,  and  the  diminutiA'e 
stature  of  Zacchteus  made  it  hopeless  for  him  to  get  a  view  of  him 
in  the  same  Avay  as  others.  Knowing  the  course  Avhich  Jesus  would 
necessarily  take,  he  ran  on  in  advance,  and  climljed  a  tree,  from  Avhich 

3, 4  position  he  Avould  be  able  to  look  down  on  everything :  '  and  could 
not  for  the  crowd,  because  he  was  little  of  stature.  And  he  ran  on 
before,  and  climbed  up  into  a  sycamore  tree  to  see  him  :  for  he  was 
to  pass  that  Avay.'  It  was  by  no  means  a  dignified  position,  but  ifc  • 
answered  the  purpose.  We  are  not  told  Avhether  Zacchteus  recognised 
Jesus  as  one  he  had  met  before,  but  Jesus  certainly  identified  him, 
and  addressed  him  lamiliarly  by  name.  More  than  that,  he  bade  him 
come  down  instantly,  and  Avelcome  him  to  his  house,  Avhere  Jesus  in- 

5  tended  to  stay,  as  though  they  Avere  old  friends.  '  And  Avhen  Jesus 
came  to  the  place,  he  looked  up,  and  said  unto  him,  Zacchseus,  make 
haste,  and  come  down ;  for  to-day  I  must  abide  at  thy  house.'    All 


TART  11.]         .1    ,S':/7  7>1'    OF    THE    FOUR    iKASFFLS.  241 

that  reads  very  naturally,  and  the  evaii^'clist  leaves  us  to  draw  our  own 
iuferenees.  He  does  nut  add  a  word  which  mii;ht  lead  us  to  supj^os*}  that 
the  knowledue  exhibited  by  Jesus  was  sujiernatural,  and  it  is  not  for 
us  to  assert  that  which  Luke  rclrained  from  6ayini>-.  Aiter' looked 
up'  the  Authorised  Version  has,  '  and  saw  him,'  which  is  omitted  by 
the  Revisers  and  Tischendorf,  not  beinti'  in  the  two  oldest  MSS. 
That  the  quick  eye  of  .Jesus  should  lis>'htu})on  the  man  whose  position 
was  so  (•ons])icuous,  is  not  to  be  wondered  at.  Alford  observes  : 
'  The  prohahiUli/  is,  that  our  Lord's  supernatural  knowledge  of  man 
(see  John  i.  48-50)  is  intended  to  be  understood  as  the  means  of  his 
knowing  Zacclucus  :  but  the  narrative  does  not  absolutely  exclude 
the  supposition  of  a  jiersonal  knowledge  of  Zacchteus  on  the  part  of 
some  around  him.'  No  :  nor  on  the  part  of  Jesus,  whose  mode  of  address 
decidedly  indicated  a  prior  mutual  acquaintance.  Zacchteus  was  of 
the  class  with  whom  Jesus  had  been  in  the  habit  of  consorting  ;  the 
expression  '  who  he  is,'  indicates  that  Zacchreus  was  bent  upon  ascer- 
taining whether  he  might  not  be  able  to  recognise  him,  and  there  is  no 
reason  why  Jesus  should  have  feigned  a  recognition  and  assumed  a 
tone  of  friendly  familiarity  with  an  utter  stranger.  Let  the  narrative 
be  taken  in  its  entirety,  and  interpreted  naturally  and  rationally. 
That  the  evangelist  gives  no  hint  of  anything  supernatural  or  extra- 
ordinary, is  by  itself  good  evidence  that  he  did  not  intend  us  to  view 
the  account  in  that  light.  Zacchgeus  is  not  represented  as  being 
astounded  or  awed  when  thus  familiarly  addressed  by  Jesus.  On  the 
contrary,  the  following  words  read  like  the  description  of  a  renewal  of 
intimacy  between  persons  who  have  been  long  separated,  and  who 
rejoice  to  meet  again.  'And  he  made  haste,  and  came  down,  and  oLukeG 
received  him  joyfully.'  That  Jesus  should  have  thus  deliberately  chosen 
to  associate  with  one  whose  hated  calling  was  of  itself  enough  to 
bring  his  character  into  disrepute,  excited  much  comment  and  ill- 
natured  criticism.  'And  when  they  saw  it,  they  all  murmured,  "  <" 
saying.  He  is  gone  in  to  lodge  with  a  man  that  is  a  sinner.' 
Zacchaeus  stood  forward,  and  repelled  the  taunt.  So  far  from  de- 
serving it,  he  had  given  half  of  his  property  away  to  the  poor,  and  if 
any  wrongful  exaction  had  been  made  by  him  in  his  business  of  tax- 
collector,  he  was  anxious  to  offer  the  amplest  compensation.  '  And  •>  § 
Zacchffius  stood,  and  said  unto  the  Lord,  Behold,  Lord  (Sir — Young), 
the  half  of  my  goods  I  give  to  the  poor ;  and  if  I  have  wrongfully 
exacted  aught  of  any  man,  I  restore  fourfold.'  Jesus  accorded  to  him 
the  fullest  credence  and  sympathy.  Whatever  the  past  career  of 
Zacchseus  might  have  been,  and  whatever  others  might  think  and 
say  of  him  now,  Jesus  recognised  in  this  declaration  an  honest  heart 
and  purpose,  an  augury  and  evidence  of  moral  rectitude.  That  was 
the  true  salvation  of  personal,  family  and  social  life,  the  genuine 
sign  of  a  descent  from  Abraham.  'And  Jesus  said  unto  him.  To-day  ..  « 
is  salvation  come  to  this  house,  forasmuch  as  he  also  is  a  son  of 
Abraham.'  The  contempt  poured  upon  the  class  to  which  Zacchajus 
belonged,  was  the  attracting  power  which  drew  Jesus  to  his  side. 
'  For  the  son  of  man  came  to  seek  and  to  save  that  which  was  lost.'         „     lo 

This  justification  of  Zacchseus  was  spoken  in  presence  of  his 
accusers,  who,  it  seems,  were  believers  in  Jesus,  for  he  seized  the 
opportunity  to  address  to  them  a  warning  on  another  subject  on 
which   also   they  held  erroneous   views.     They  were   indulging   an 


242  THE    KING   AND    THE    KINGDOM:  [part  ii. 

expectation  that  the  approaching  visit  of  Jesiis  to  Jerusalem  would 
result  in  some  open  manifestation  of  God's  kingdom.  The  parable 
now  delivered  disclosed  the  faulty  basis  and  inherent  evils  of  a 
19  Luke  11  kingdom  founded  on  an  earthly  pattern.  'And  as  they  heard  these 
things,  he  added  and  spake  a  parable,  because  he  was  nigh  to 
Jerusalem,  and  lecause  they  supposed  that  the  kingdom  of  God  was 
immediately  to  appear.'  Jesus  sketched  a  vivid  picture  of  an  earthly 
potentate,  of  kindgoms  taken,  held,  ruled,  after  the  fashion  of  this 
world,  of  social  anarchy,  of  the  high-handedness,  selfishness,  and 
favouritism  of  governors,  no  man  able  to  call  anything  his  own,  and 
every  aspiration  after  political  freedom  and  representative  government 

„  vi  ruthlessly  suppressed  and  quenched  in  blood.  '  He  said  therefore,  A 
certain  nobleman  Avent  into  a  far  country,  to  receive  for  himself  a 
kingdom,  and  to  return.'  Young  renders  :  'A  certain  man  of  birth 
proceeded  into  a  distant  region  to  take  to  himself  a  kingdom,  and  to 
return.'  Whether  to  '  receive  for  himself,'  as  a  family  heritage,  or  'to 
take  to  himself,'  by  force  of  arms,  matters  little  :  he  was  an  aristocrat, 
born  to  hold  sway  over  men,  and  claiming  to  exercise  dominion  even 
in  a  far  distant  land.  It  was  his  intention,  after  taking  possession  of 
the  colony,  to  leave  its  administration  to  others,  he  himself  returning 
to  rule  over  his  native  country.  Before  departing  he  summoned  ten 
of  his  slaves,  and  entrusted  them  with  ten  rninfe,  bidding  them  trade 

„  13  with  the  money  on  his  behalf  during  his  absence.  '  And  he  called  ten 
servants  (Gr.  bondservants)  of  his,  and  gave  them  ten  pounds,  and 
said  unto  them,  Trade  ye  herewith  till  I  come.'  Alford  explains  :  '  The 
sums  given  are  here  all  the  same,  and  all  very  small.  The  (Attic) 
mina  is  -^j^  of  a  talent,  and  equal  to  about  £'?>  of  our  money.'  The 
transaction  does  not  disclose  a  spark  of  liberality,  or  the  least 
discernment  of  character  :  the  same  miserable  pittance  is  placed  in 
the  hands  of  each,  and  an  intimation  is  given  that  the  trust  will  end 
on  their  lord's  return.  He  is  represented  as  a  man  held  in  universal 
detestation  :  his  slaves  were  not  free  to  express  an  opinion,  but  his 
subjects  hated  him,  and  the  popular  indignation  against  him  rose  to 
such  a  height  that  after  his  departure  a  deputation  from  the  citizens 
was  sent  after  him  to  announce  their  determination  to  submit  no 

„  11  longer  to  his  rule.  '  But  his  citizens  hated  him,  and  sent  an  ambassage 
after  him,  saying.  We  will  not  that  this  man  reign  over  us.'  But  it 
proved  easier  to  frame  a  declaration  of  independence  in  his  absence, 
than  to  free  themselves  from  his  tyranny  and  escape  his  vengeance. 
The  picture  was  not  over-coloured.  Alford  observes  :  '  The  ground- 
work of  this  part  of  the  parable  seems  to  have  been  derived  from  the 
history  of  Archelaus,  son  of  Herod  the  Great.  The  kings  of  the 
Herodian  family  made  journeys  to  Rome,  to  receive  their  "  kingdom." 
On  Archelaus's  doing  so,  the  Jews  sent  after  him  a  protest,  which 
how'ever  was  not  listened  to  by  Augustus.  The  situation  was 
appropriate  ;  for  at  Jericho  was  the  royal  palace  which  Archelaus 
had  built  with  great  magnificence.'  If  that  piece  of  contemporaneous 
history  be  fitted  into  the  parable,  the  circumstances  are  not  improved. 
In  either  case,  we  have  a  system  of  arbitrary  and  irresponsible  govern- 
ment, the  wishes,  interests  and  aspirations  of  the  people  being  held  as 
of  no  account  by  their  rulers.  The  monarch,  having  accomphshed 
the  object  of  his  journey,  on  his  return  summoned  his  slaves  to  account 
to  him  for  the  mouey  he  had  advanced  and  the  profit  resulting  from 


PART  II.]         A    STUDY    OF    THE    FOUR    GOSPELS.  243 

its  employment.  '  And  it  came  to  pass,  when  lie  was  come  back  lo  r.ukc  ir, 
again,  having-  received  the  kingdom,  that  lie  commanded  those 
servants  (Gr/bondservants)  unto  whom  he  had  given  the  money,  to 
be  called  to  him,  that  he  might  know  what  they  had  gained  by 
trading.'  Alford  notes  that  the  closing  words  should  be  read  and 
rendered,  '  what  business  they  had  carried  on.'  Young's  translation 
is,  '  that  he  might  know  what  each  had  done  in  business  : '  the  result 
in  each  case  would  prove  their  aptitude  for  atfiairs,  and  to  what  extent 
they  could  be  trusted  to  look  after  their  master's  interests.  The  first 
had  succeeded  in  increasing  the  small  fund  tenfold.  '  And  the  first  ••  "' 
came  before  him,  saying,  Lord  (Sir— Young),  thy  pound  hath  made 
ten  pounds  more.'  That  showed  energy,  shrewdness,  fidelity  ;  the 
man  could  be  relied  upon  to  make  the  most  of  opportunities,  to  add 
wealth  to  the  royal  coffers.  '  And  he  said  unto  him.  Well  done,  thou  -  "' 
good  servant  (Gr.  bondservant).'  His  capacities  in  that  direction 
marked  him  out  for  far  larger  responsibilities:  'because  thou  wast  ,.  i^ 
found  faithful  in  a  very  little,  have  thou  authority  over  ten  cities.' 
That  indeed  was  a  huge  trust  :  the  successful  money-maker  is  at  a 
stroke  transformed  into  a  governor  of  men.  What  connection 
between  the  two  offices  there  might  be,  it  were  difficult  to  say.  The 
driver  of  hard  bargains  is  scarcely  the  man  whom  a  wise  ruler  would 
prefer  to  entrust  with  the  lives,  liberties,  physical  and  moral  welfare 
of  vast  multitudes.  '  He  that  ruleth  over  men  must  be  just,  ruling  in  -23  ii.  sam.  s 
the  fear  of  God.'  Those  were  '  the  last  words '  of  David.  No  such 
requirement  is  made  of  this  governor  of  ten  cities.  The  smaUness  of 
the  amount  he  had  to  deal  with  is  a  striking  feature  of  the  parable, 
and  that  point  is  emphasised  by  the  king's  admission  that  it  was  '  a 
very  little.'  No  matter  how  trifling  the  concerns  in  which  royal 
favourites  minister  to  their  master's  selfishness  :  that  has  too  often 
been  the  surest  road  to  promotion,  the  welfare  of  the  people  being 
sacrificed  and  their  destinies  committed  to  men  whose  only  claim  to 
consideration  was  the  title  and  the  influence  conferred  upon  them 
by  an  arbitrary  monarch.  As  mankind  progress,  these  things  slowly 
mend.  But  in  the  days  of  Jesus  that  system  was  in  full  force  ;  and 
knowing  that  the  people  were  looking  to  him  to  inaugurate  a  new 
kingdom,  he  brought  vividly  before  them  in  this  parable  the  inherent 
evils  of  those  then  existing  in  the  world.  The  second  of  the  ten 
slaves  had  increased  his  capital  only  half  as  much  as  the  first,  but  the 
ability  to  make  five  hundred  per  cent,  pointed  him  out  as  a  fit  man 
to  rule  over  five  cities.  '  And  the  second  came,  saying,  Thy  pound,  i'-i  i^"i<''  i>;. 
Lord  (Sir — Young),  hath  made  five  pounds.  And  he  said  unto  him 
also.  Be  thou  also  over  five  cities.'  These  two  instances  indicate 
sufficiently  the  rule  of  promotion  in  king's  courts.  The  aggrandise- 
ment of  the  monarch  was  the  primary  concern  ;  devotion  to  his 
interests  the  only  road  to  elevation  ;  high  principles  of  action  and 
earnest  labour  on  behalf  of  the  people  committed  to  their  charge, — 
these  things  were  well-nigh  out  of  sight  and  out  of  mind  among 
kings  and  nobles.  One  of  the  ten  slaves,  however,  did  not  choose  to 
swim  with  the  stream  ;  despotic  rule  was  an  abomination  to  his  mind, 
and  he  had  determined  not  to  spend  his  life  in  labours  the  fruits  of 
which  would  go  to  his  master,  not  to  himself.  '  And  another  (Gr.  the  •  -'';; 
other)  came,  saying,  Lord  (Sir — Young),  behold,  here  is  thy  pound, 
which  I  kept  laid  up  in  a  napkin  :  for  I  feared  tliee,  because  thou  art 


244  THE    KING    AND    THE    KINGDOM:  [pakt  ir. 

an  austere  man  :  thou  takest  up  that  thou  layedsfc  not  down,  and 
reapest  that  thou  didst  not  sow.'  That  might  be  true  :  but  he  was  a 
bondservant,  bound  to  labour  for  his  lord,  and  blamable  if  he  did  not. 
He  ought  either  to  have  dealt  faithfully  with  the  trust,  or  have 
handed  it  over  to  others,  the  one  thing  needful  being  that  the  royal 
;  wealth  should  constantly  go  on  accumulating.  '  He  saith  unto  him, 
'  Out  of  thine  own  mouth  will  I  judge  thee,  thou  wicked  servant  (Gr. 
bondservant).  Thou  knewest  that  I  am  an  austere  man,  taking  up 
that  I  laid  not  down,  and  reaping  that  I  did  not  sow;  then  wherefore 
gavest  thou  not  my  money  into  the  bank,  and  I  at  my  coming  should 
have  required  (or,  I  should  have  gone  and  required)  it  with  interest  ?' 
Responsibilities  and  advancement  were  not  for  such  as  he.  Let  the 
money  be  taken  from  him,  and  handed  over  to  him  who  could  make 
the  best  use  of  it,  '  And  he  said  unto  them  that  stood  by,  Take 
away  from  him  the  pound,  and  give  it  unto  him  that  hath  the  ten 
pounds.'  Against  that  the  instinctive  sense  of  justice  rose  in  protest. 
'And  they  said  unto  him.  Lord  (Sir — Young),  he  hath  ten  pounds.' 
Alford  observes  that  this  '  is  parenthetical,  spoken  by  the  sfauders-b//  in 
the  parable,  in  surprise  at  such  a  decision.'  This  additional  touch  of 
nature  Avas  not  thrown  into  the  parable  without  a  motive.  It  is  of 
the  same  tone  and  colour  as  the  surrounding  incidents,  the  object 
being  apparently  to  represent  this  pattern  of  earthly  rulership  in  an 
unfavourable  light.  From  first  to  last  it  presents  a  scene  of  disorder, 
of  enforced  subjection,  of  imperiousness  on  the  one  side  and  a 
tendency  to  rebellion  on  the  other.  The  citizens  muttered  discontent, 
and  wouki  have  shaken  off,  if  they  could,  the  hated  yoke  of  sovereignty. 
One  of  the  slaves  of  the  household  delilierately  neglected  to  labour  for 
his  lord's  advantage,  would  not  even  take  the  trouble  to  place  out  his 
money  where  it  would  bear  interest,  and  when  called  to  account, 
boldly  denounced  his  master's  character  and  conduct  to  his  face. 
And  now,  when  the  command  is  given  to  transfer  the  pound  to  the 
man  who  least  needed  it,  having  al)-eady  more  to  deal  with  than  any 
of  the  others,  dissatisfaction  is  excited  in  the  minds  of  his  fellows,  and 
an  attempt  at  expostulation  made.  No  one,  outside  the  circle  of  a 
few  reigning  favourites,  is  contented  in  that  kingdom  ;  the  autocrat 
rules  by  fear,  not  by  love  ;  his  will  and  his  interest  are  the  only  things 
to  be  considered  ;  the  people's  wishes  are  treated  with  contempt ;  no 
man's  time  or  energy  can  be  claimed  for  himself  ;  and  the  system  is 
upheld  by  favouritism,  those  most  subservient  to  the  royal  will  and 
pleasure  being  elevated  to  positions  in  which  they  can  aid  and  imitate 
their  lord's  despotic  rule  :  '  Have  thou  authority  over  ten  cities  .  .  . 
Be  thou  also  over  five  cities.'  Success  to  the  successful,  was  the 
inexorable  rule  :  for  them  all  the  honours,  emoluments  and  opportuni- 
ties of  distinction,  which  the  despot  might  choose  to  apportion  out  as 
the  reward  of  obsequious  fidelity.  But  woe  to  the  unprofitable, 
servant :  whoever  failed  to  increase  the  royal  revenue,  was  adjudged 
iucomijetent,  and  unworthy  to  hold  office.  '  I  say  unto  you,  that  unto 
every  one  that  hath  shall  be  given  ;  but  from  him  that  hath  not,  even 
that  which  he  hath  sliall  be  taken  away  from  him.'  The  vigour  and 
rigour  thus  exercised  by  the  monarch  within  his  court,  were  as  nothing- 
compared  with  the  sternness  shown  towards  those  outside  who  had 
presumed  to  seek  deliverance  from  his  rule.  No  hint  is  given  that 
they  had  taken  up  arms  against  the  government  ;  it  was  enough  that 


rAiiT  II.]         A    STUDY    OF    THE    FOUR    GOSPELS.  245 

tliey  liad  formulated  the  resolntion,  '  We  will  not  that  this  man  reign 
over  us.'  That  constituted  them,  in  his  eyes,  rebels  of  the  deepest 
dye  ;  such  citizens  he  regarded  not  as  subjects,  but  as  enemies,  with 
whom  he  would  hold  no  parley,  to  whom  he  would  show  no  mercy,  lo  Luke  27 
*  Howbeit  these  mine  enemies,  which  would  not  that  I.  should  reign 
over  them,  bring  hither,  and  slay  them  before  me.'  It  was  a  terrible 
picture  of  arbitrary  rale,  its  basis,  its  working,  its  results,  which  Jesus 
placed  before  the  minds  of  his  hearers.  That  was  the  kind  of  'king- 
dom' with  which  mankind  had  become  familiar.  Could  they  desire 
that  the  world's  history  should  continue  to  be  written  alter  such  a 
fashion?  Whenever  'the  kingdom  of  God'  should  'appear,'  it 
would  sui'cly  be  something  altogether  different  from  this.  Wc;  are 
not  told  that  Jesus  added  a  single  word  of  comment  or  explanation  : 
he  left  the  parable  to  speak  ibr  itself ;  it  is  not  prefaced,  as  many  are, 
with  the  words,  '  the  kingdom  of  heaven  is  like  unto  .  .  .  ,'  nor  had 
he  been  discoursing  preA'iously  on  the  subject.  It  was  because  those 
about  him  were  expecting  (jod's  kingdom,  that  he  sketched  out  this 
one  after  the  world's  model.  Touch  after  touch  added  to  the  sombre- 
uess  and  unloveliness  of  its  characteristics  and  surroundings,  and  the 
closing  catastrophe  was  an  awful  scene  of  revengeful  slaughter.  The 
kingdom  of  a  despot,  or  the  kingdom  of  the  devil,  it  may  be  :  any- 
thing rather  than  a  picture  of  '  the  kingdom  of  God  ! '  Yet  that  is 
the  light  in  which  men  have  come  to  view  it.  Here  is  Dean  Alford's 
interpretation  :  '  The  nobleman,  son  of  a  king,  literally  one  high  horn, 
is  the  Lord  Jesus  ;  the  kingdom  is  that  over  his  own  citizens,  the 
Jews.  They  sent  a  message  after  Him  ;  their  cry  went  up  to 
heaven,  in  the  persecutions  of  His  servants,  &c. ;  we  will  not  liave  this 
man  to  rchjn  over  us.''  The  ideas  are  as  frightful  as  they  are  fanciful. 
Once  on  that  wrong  track  of  thought,  there  is  no  stopping  :  on  the 
words,  '  These  mine  enemies,  which  would  not  that  I  should  reign 
over  them,  bring  hither,  and  slay  them  before  me,'  Alford's  comment 
is,  '  This  command  brings  out  both  comings  of  the  Lord, — at  the 
destruction  of  Jerusalem,  and  at  the  end  of  the  world.'  Away,  once 
and  for  ever,  with  the  monstrous,  horrible  notion  of  theologians,  that  the 
destruction  of  Jerusalem  by  the  Romans  was,  in  any  sense,  the 
'  coming '  of  the  Lord  Jesus  !  He  foresaw  it,  indeed,  and  foretold  it, 
pitying  the  helpless  sufferers,  and  bidding  his  disciples,  '  pray  ye  that  24  Mat.  -jj 
your  flight  be  not  in  the  winter.'  It  was  one  of  those  episodes  in 
human  history  brought  upon  mankind  by  themselves,  the  natural  and 
nevitable  outcome  of  that  system  of  rulership  on  which  the  kingdoms 
of  the  world  were  founded,  the  selfish  wielding  of  irresponsible  power, 
the  rebellious  spirit  thereby  generated,  the  arbitrament  of  the  sword, 
the  triumph  of  might  over  right.  The  kingdom  and  the  coming  of 
Jesus  are  the  very  opposite  of  that :  '  the  Son  of  man  came  not  to  9  Luko :«; 
destroy  men's  lives,  but  to  save  them.^ 

Whilst  Jesus  was  travelling  towards  Jerusalem  many  others  also 
were  proceeding  thither  from  various  points  to  keep  the  annual 
festival  of  the  passover.  '  Now  the  passover  of  the  Jews  was  at  hand:  ii  Joim  55 
and  many  went  up  to  Jerusalem  out  of  the  country  before  the  pass- 
over,  to  purify  themselves.'  They  were  anxious  to  see  Jesus,  and 
were  not  without  hope  of  finding  him  in  Jerusalem,  although  it  was 
notorious  that  he  could  only  go  there  at  peril  of  his  life.     Would 


246 


THE    KING   AND    THE    KINGDOM: 


[part  II. 


ujoiiiiao  he  venture  to  come  up  to  the  feast?  '  They  sought  therefore  for 
Jesus,  and  spake  one  with  another,  as  they  stood  in  the  temple,  What 
think  ye  ?  That  he  wiU  not  come  to  the  feast  ? '  After  his  last  visit 
he  had  found  it  necessary  to  withdraw  with  his  disciples  to  a  retired 
„  54  spot,  '  a  country  near  to  the  wilderness,'  and  a  decree  of  the  Jewish 
rulers  was  still  in  force,  making  it  incumbent  upon  any  one  who 
;,  •'-"  knew  his  whereabouts  to  disclose  it.  '  Now  the  chief  priests  and  the 
Pharisees  had  given  commandment,  that,  if  any  man  knew  where  he 
was,  he  should  shew  it,  that  they  might  take  him.'  Jesus  was  now 
on  the  point  of  putting  himself  again  within  reach  of  their  power, 
although  he  knew  full  well  that  they  would  exercise  it  to  his  destruc- 
tion.    Six  days  before  the  passover  he  appeared  in  Bethany,  sm'e  of  a 

i-ij(.hni  welcome  from  the  family  of  Lazarus.  'Jesus  therefore  six  days 
before  the  passover  came  to  Bethany,  where  Lazarus  was,  whom 
Jesus  raised  from  the  dead.'  Following  the  two  oldest  MSS.,  the 
Revisers  have  omitted  the  words,  '  which  had  been  dead.'  Very 
hearty  was  the  greeting  he  received.  An  entertainment  was  prepared 
to  celebrate  his  arrival,  Martha  busying  herself  with  serving,  and 
„  -  Lazarus  being  one  of  the  guests.  '  So  they  made  him  a  supper  there  : 
and  Martha  served  ;  but  Lazarus  was  one  of  them  that  sat  at  meat 
with  him.'     This  was  not,  as  might  have  been  inferred,  in  Martha's 

5!6  Mat.  0      liouse,   for  Matthew's   account  begins  :  '  Now,  when  Jesus   was   in 

14  Maiiv  3  Bethany,  in  the  house  of  Simon  the  leper  ; '  and  Mark's  :  '  And  while 
he  was  in  Bethany  in  the  house  of  Simon  the  leper,  as  he  sat  at  meat.' 

20  Mat.  7  There  the  following  incident  occurred.  '  There  came  unto  him  a 
Avoman,  having  an  alabaster  cruse  (or,  a  flask)  of  exceeding  precious 
ointment,  and  she  poured  it  upon  his  head,  as  he  sat  at  meat.'  In 
the  Authorised  Version  the  word  is 'box,'  not 'cruse.'  Young  and 
Tischendorf  retain  the  word  '  box.'     Mark  describes  the  kind  of  oint- 

14  Mark  3  mcut :  '  there  came  a  woman  having  an  alabaster  cruse  of  ointment 
of  spikenard  very  costly  ;  a7id  she  brake  the  cruse,  and  poured  it  over 
his  head.'  The  Revisers'  note  is  :  '  Gr.  jn'sfic  tiard,  pistic  being 
perhaps  a  local  name.  Others  take  it  to  mean  genm'ne ;  others  liquid.^ 
Young  renders  it  '  myrrh  '  in  Matthew,  and  '  spikenard  '  in  Mark. 
Luther  renders  Matthew  :  '  ein  Glas  mit  kostlichem  Wasser,'  '  a 
glass  with  costly  water,'  and  Mark,  '  ein  Glas  mit  ungefalschtem  und 
kostlichem  Nardenwasser,'  '  a  glass  A\ith  unadulterated  and  costly 
nardwater.'  John  does  not  allude  to  the  vessel  Avliich  contained  it, 
but  states  its  weight,  and  identihes  the  woman  as  Mary,  the  sister  of 

lyjoiiiKi  Lazarus.  '  Mary  therefore  took  a  pound  of  ointment  of  spikenard, 
very  precious,  and  anointed  the  feet  of  Jesus,  and  wiped  his  feet 
with  her  hair.'     The  act  has  been  previously  alluded  to  by  Jolni  as 

11  John  •-■  that  of  Mary  :  '  And  it  was  that  Mary  which  anointed  the  Lord 
with  ointment,  and  wiped  his  feet  with  her  hair,  whose  l^rother 
Lazarus  was  sick.'  John  does  not  mention  the  pouring  of  the  oint- 
ment over  the  head,  and  the  two  other  records  do  not  allude  to  the 
anointing  of  the  feet,  nor  to  the  use  of  Mary's  hair  in  drying  them. 
It  may  be  that  the  account  of  John  is  that  of  an  eye-witness,  and  the 
other  accounts  made  up  from  hearsay  evidence,  which  did  not  give  the 
woman's  name,  or  state  more  than  the  current  report  that  the  ointment 
was  poured  upon  the  head.  Although  very  costly,  it  was  applied  pro- 
fusely, lavishly,  even  '  wastefully '  in  the  opinion  of  certain  critical 
observers.     There  is  in  John's  narrative  an  additional  touch,  which 


PART  II.]         A    STUDY    OF    THE    FOUU    GOSPELS.  247 

indicates  that  it  was  derived  from  one  who  was  i^resent  at  the  enter- 
tainment :  '  and  the  house  was  filled  with  the  odour  of  the  ointment.'  i-' Joims 
Some  of  those  present  were  scandalized  at  beholding  such  extra^■a- 
gance  :  they  estimated  the  cost  of  the  ointment,  and  thought  how 
large  an  amount  of  comfort  the  expenditure  of  so  much  money  might 
have  brought  to  the  poor.     '  But  there  were  some  that  had  iudigna-  m  Mark  4, 5 
tion  among  themselves,  ■sa//itiu,  To  what  purpose  hath  this  waste  of 
the  ointment  been  made  ?  For  this  ointment  might  have  been  sold 
for  above   three   hundred  pence,  and  given  to  the  poor.'     As  the 
denary  was  the  common  day's  wage  of  a  labourer,  the  three  hundred 
denaries  would  be  equivalent  to  about  £50  in  our  time.     Matthew 
informs  us  that  this  question  was  raised  by  the  disciples  of  Jesus. 
'But  when  the  disciiilcs  saw  it,  they  had  indignation,   saying,  To2GMat.  s,  9 
what  purpose  is  this  A\aste  ?     For  this  ointment  might  have  been  sold 
for  much,  and  given  to  the  poor.'     John  was  able  to  state  with  whom 
the  idea,  which  was  thus  taken  up  by  the  disciples,  originated.     '  But  ijjoinu.s 
Judas  Iscariot,  one  of  his  disciples,  which  should  betray  him,  saith. 
Why  was  not  this  ointment  sold  for  three  hundred  pence,  and  given 
to  the  poor  ? '     The  evangelist  does  not  scruple  to  assert  that  the 
suggestion  was  simple  hypocrisy  on  the  part  of  Judas,  that  he  cared 
nothing  about  the  poor,  but  watched  for  an  opportunity  of  purloining 
money  from  the  poorbox,  which  was  entrusted  to  his  keeping.     How 
well  does  that  suit  the  character  of  the  man  who  sold  his  Master ! 
'Now  this  he  said,  not  because  he  cared  for  the  poor,  but  because  he       „    a 
was  a  thief,  and  having  the  liag  (or,  box)  took  away  (or,  carried)  what 
was  put  therein.'     The  criticism  of  the  disciples  Avas  directed  against 
Mary  :  '  And  they  murmured  against  her.'   Jesus,  becoming  conscious  14  Mark  5 
of  all  this,  expostulated  with  his  disciples  on  the  woman's  behalf. 
'  But  Jesus  perceiving  it  said  unto  them,  Why  trouble  ye  the  woman  ? '  20  Mat.  10 
"But  Jesus,   said.    Let   her   alone;    why   trouble   ye   her?'     Jesus  m  Mark  0 
was  as  poor  as  anybody,  and  he  regarded  the  action  as  a  good  deed 
rendered  to  himself  :  '  She  hath  wrought  a  good  work  upon  me.'       „     0 
'  For  she  hath  wrought  a  good  work  upon  me.'     The  poor  would  be  o^Mat.  10 
always  present  among  them,  but  not  Jesus.     '  For  ye  have  the  poor      ^_    i^ 
always  with  you  ;  but  me  ye  have  not  always.'     Mark  is  fuller  :  '  For  u  Mark  t 
ye  have  the  poor  always  Avith  you,  and  Avhensoever  ye  will  ye  can  do 
them  good  :  but  me  ye  have  not  always.'     Death  was  very  near  to 
him,  and  this  office  of  womanly  love  might  be  regarded  as  performed 
in  anticipation  of  his  burial.     '  She  hath  done  what  she  could  :  she      „     s 
hath  anointed  my  body  aforehand  for  the  burying.'     The  form  of  the 
expression  is  given  somewhat  differently  by  Matthew  :  '  For  in  that  20  Mat.  12 
she  poured  (Gr.  cast)  this  ointment  upon  ruy  body,  she  did  it  to  pre- 
pare me  for  burial.'     John  is  to  the  same  effect,  but  he  reverses  the 
sayings  :  '  Jesus  therefore  said.  Suffer  her  to  Jceep  it  (or,  Let  her  12  joim  7,  s 
alone  :  it  was  that  she  might  keep  it)  against  the  day  of  my  burying. 
For  the  poor  ye  have  always  with  you,  but  me  ye  have  not  always.' 
It  Avas  hard  for  Mary  to  be  blamed  and  shamed  for  her  good  action. 
That  must  not  be.     It  Avas  a  deed  Avorthy  to  be  recorded,  and  it 
should  be  held  in  Avorld-wide  remembrance.     '  Verily  I  say  unto  you,  20  Mat.  is 
Wheresoever  this  gospel  (or,  these  good  tidings)  shall  be  preached  in 
the  Avhole  world,  that  also  which  this  Avonian  hath  done  shall  be 
spoken  of  for  a  memorial  of  her.'     Mark  records  that  saying  Avord 


248  THE    KING    AND    THE    KINGDOM:  [part  ii. 

for  word,  simply  putting  '  and  '  before  '  Acrily,'  according  to  tlie  two 
oldest  MSS.,  which  have  been  followed  by  the  Revisers  in  this  point ; 
on  the  same  authority  they  have  here  altered  '  this  gospel '  to  '  the 
gospel,'  as  Tischendorf  has  done.  Alford  has  the  following  note  : 
'  We  cannot  but  be  struck  with  the  majesty  of  this  prophetic 
announcement :  introduced  with  the  peculiar  and  weighty  rcrili/  I 
say  unto  you,  conveying,  by  implication,  the  whole  mystery  of  the 
yospel  which  should  go  forth  from  His  Death  as  its  source,- — looking 
forward  to  the  end  of  time,  when  it  shall  have  been  preached  in  the 
whole  world, — and  specifying  the  fact  that  this  deed  should  be  recorded 
wherever  it  is  preached.  "We  may  notice  (1)  that  the  announcement 
is  a  distinct  prophetic  recognition  by  our  Lord  of  the  existence  of 
vritten  records,  in  which  the  deed  should  be  related  ;  for  in  no  other 
conceivable  way  could  the  universality  of  mention  be  bi'ought  about : 
(2)  that  we  have  here  (if  indeed  we  needed  it)  a  convincing  argument 
against  that  view  of  our  three  first  Gospels  Avhich  supposes  them  to 
have  been  compiled  from  an  original  document,  for  if  there  had  been 
such  a  document,  it  must  have  contained  this  narrative,  and  no  one 
using  such  a  Gospel  could  have  lailed  to  insert  this  narrative, 
accompanied  by  such  a  promise,  in  his  own  work, — which  8t.  Luke 
has  not  done  :  (3)  that  the  same  consideration  is  equally  decisive 
against  St.  Luke  having  used,  or  even  seen,  our  present  Gospels  of 
Matthew  and  Mark.'  Sections  (2)  and  (3)  constitute  a  very  strong 
argument,  which  may  be  commended  to  the  consideration  of  those 
who  might  be  disposed  to  accept  the  contrary  idea,  which  has  been 
put  forward  by  the  Rev.  J.  J.  Halcombe  in  '  Gospel  Difficulties,' 
(page  Ixxxiv),  as  follows  :  '  S.  Luke's  object  was  to  remove  an 
uncertainty,  or  suspicion  of  untruthfulness,  which  had  affected 
certain  Gospels  (Logoi)  which,  he  states,  had  been  handed  over  to  the 
Church  by  those  whose  authority  for  writing  them  consisted  in  their 
having  been  either  "  eye-witnesses  or  ministers  of  the  word  ;  "  this 
uncertainty,  or  suspicion,  having  been  engendered  by  certain  uu- 
successful  attempts  which  many  had  previously  made  to  rearrange,  or 
harmonize,  these  Gospels.  That  these  Logoi  were  in  fact  the  Gospels 
of  S.  Matthew,  S.  Mark,  and  S.  John,  we  gather  (1)  from  the  use 
which  S.  Luke  makes  of  the  word  Logos  in  his  Preface  to  the  Acts, 
where  he  styles  his  own  Gospel  a  Logos,  (2)  from  his  definition  of  the 
writers,  and  (3)  from  the  l\ict  that  from  the  very  commencement  to 
the  end  of  his  Gospel,  he  traverses  the  same  ground,  and  deals  with 
the  same  incidents,  as  those  Evangelists  ;  and  that,  not  only  in  the 
same  general  order,  but  in  such  a  manner  as  to  elucidate  on  every 
occasion  .  .  .  '  and  so  on.  This  chain  of  reasoning  hangs  on  a  very 
fragile  thread.  //'  Theophilus  had  the  Gospels  of  Matthew,  Mark 
and  John,  the  word  Logoi  might  represent  them  :  but  that  is  a  mere 
assumption,  advanced  without  a  shred  of  evidence,  and  improbable  on 
the  face  of  it. 

Section  (1)  of  Alford's  argument  is  overstrained,  and  open  to  question. 
He  takes  the  expression,  '  Wheresoever  these  good  tidings  shall  be 
preached  in  the  whole  world,'  as  proof  positive  that  the  good  tidings 
were  to  take  the  shape  of  uriiteii  records.  That  no  more  follows 
from  this  passage  than  from  another  passage  :  'Go  ye  into  all  the 
Avorld,  and  preach  the  gospel  to  the  whole  creation.'     Who  would 


PART  II.]         .4    STUDY    OF    THE    FOUR    GOSPELS.  249 

understaud  that  to  signify  that  the  apostles  would  issue  written 
records,  and  that  'in  no  other  conceivable  Avay  could  the  universality 
of  mention  be  brought  about  ? '  The  application  of  the  word  '  gospel ' 
to  written  or  printed  documents  was  the  outcome  of  later  times.  The 
words  '  this  gospel,'  uttered  by  Jesus,  could  only  refer  to  something 
which  was  at  that  moment  in  the  mind  and  mouth  of  the  Hpeaker, 
aud  e(pudly  present  to  the  minds  of  his  hearers.  In  Young's  literal 
\ersion  the  word  is  always  rendered  '  good  news '  or  ' good  tidings  : ' 
whenever  aud  wherever  it  occurs  it  is  necessarily  in  connection  with 
u  particular  idea,  the  re\elation  of  a  fact  or  truth,  in  the  same  way  as 

•  news '  is  understood  and  grasped  in  reference  to  any  topic  of  the 
day.  The  sense  of  the  word  *  gospel '  was  invariably  fixed  by  the 
(•ontext,  the  '  good  news  '  being  presented  now  in  one  shape  and  now 

in  another.  Take  a  few  passages, lusing  Young's  version.  '  The  good  i  .Mark  i 
news  of  Jesus  Christ : '  obviously,  about  Jesus  Christ.  '  Believe  in  „  v> 
the  good  news  : '  that  is,  that  'the  reign  of  God  hath  come  near.' 

•  Whoever  may  lose  his  life  for  my  sake  and  for  the  good  news  : '  in  s  Mark  zr, 
])romulgating  what  Jesus  preached.     '  To  all  the  nations  it  behoveth  i3.M,„k  lo 
lirst  to  proclaim  the  good  news  : '  which  they  had  been  assisting 
Jesus,  and  would  continue,  to  proclaim.     'As  he  is  teaching  the^oLnkoi 
people  in  the  temple,  and  proclaiming  the  good  news  : '  the  teaching 

being  the  aspect  under  which  the  good  news  was  presented.     '  God  lo  Acts  7 
among  us  made  choice,  through  my  mouth,  for  the  Gentiles  to  hear 
the  word  of  the  good  news  : '  which  is  to  the  same  effect.     '  The  good  jo  nikc  24 
news  of  the  grace  of  God.'     'The  good  news  of  God  .  .  concerning  1  r.hm.  1 
His  Sou.'     'The   good   news  of   Christ.'     'According  to  my  good     ,,    i),ia 
news  : '  Paul's  doctrine  of  a  judgment  of  the  secrets  of  men  '  through  2  Rom.  i(> 
Jesus  Christ.'     '  They  were  not  all  obedient  to  the  good  tidings  : '  10  Rom.  kj 
that  is,  '  good  tidings  of  peace,  good  tidings  of  the  good  things.' 

•  As  regards,  indeed,  the  good  tidings,   Uteij  are  enemies  on    your  u  Rom.  2 
account : '  the  good  tidings  referring  to  the  coming  of  a  deli\'erer  out 

of  Zion,  'who  should  turn  away  ungodliness  from  Jacob.'  '  The  1,3  Rom. :.; 
good  news  of  God.'  It  is  not  necessary  to  go  tlirough  the  other 
passages  in  which  the  term  '  gospel '  or  '  good  news '  occurs  :  these 
are  sufficient  to  show,  at  least,  that  written  records  of  the  sayings 
and  doings  of  Jesus  do  not  properly  come  under  that  designation. 
Luke  gi\es  two  titles  to  his  so-called  '  Gospel : '  '  a  narrative,'  and 
'  a  treatise  concerning  all  that  Jesus  began  both  to  do  and  to  teach.' 
The  naming  of  each  of  the  four  histories  '  the  gospel,'  and  the  failure 
to  give  the  literal  translation, 'good  news,'  have  led  to  some  con- 
fusion of  thought,  approaching  sometimes  to  misapprehension.  Let 
anyone  disposed  to  doubt  this  take  the  pains  to  read  in  Dr.  Young's 
literal  version  the  passages,  about  70,  in  which  the  expression  'good 
news '  occurs.  A  clearer  insight  will  thereby  be  gained  of  the 
nature  and  definiteness  of  the  apostolic  teaching  :  the  proclamation 
of  '  good  news,'  as  such,  raises  naturally  and  instantaneously  in  the 
mind  the  conception  both  of  a  Sender  and  of  an  authorized  Messenger, 
Avhich  the  word  '  gospel '  does  not,  unless  a  special  mental  effort  is 
made  by  the  reader. 

Reverting  to  the  words  of  Jesus,  it  will  be  observed  that  they 
appear  in  Matthew  as  '  this  gospel '  or  '  these  good  tidings.'  '  This  ' 
or  '  these  '  must  refer  to  something  spoken  at  the  time.     He  may  have 


12  JkIhl  '.I 


250  THE   KING    AND    THE    KINCWOM :  [p^rt  ii. 

been  discoursing  at  the  meal,  as  was  his  custom,  of  'the  good  news 
of  the  reign  of  God  ; '  or  the  reference  may  have  been  to  the  context, 
'  to  prepare  me  for  burial.'  That  climax  of  his  career  was  '  good  news ' 
for  the  world,  however  distressing  at  the  time  to  himself  and  his 
disciples.  Alford  seems  to  assume  that  connection,  for  he  speaks  of 
'  the  gospel  which  should  go  forth  from  his  Death  as  its  source.' 

John  does  not  record  the  prediction  of  Jesus  concerning  Mary's 
action,  but  he  mentions  a  fact  omitted  by  the  other  evangelists.  The 
presence  of  Jesus  at  Bethany  had  been  noised  abroad,  and  many  of 
the  populace  were  attracted  thither  by  the  expectation  of  seeing  not 
only  Jesus  but  Lazarus  also,  whom  he  was  known  to  have  raised  from 
the  tomb  to  life.  '  The  common  j)eople  therefore  of  the  Jews  learned 
that  he  was  there  :  and  they  came,  not  for  Jesus'  sake  only,  but  that 
they  might  see  Lazarus  also,  whom  he  had  raised  from  the  dead.'  The 
Eevisers  have  altered '  much  people  '  to  '  the  common  people,'  Tischeu- 
dorf  renders,  '  the  great  multitude  ; '  '  Young,  '  a  great  multitude  ; ' 
Luther,  '  viel  Yolks,'  '  much  people.'  The  expression  chosen  by  the 
Eevisers  is  not  a  happy  one. 

The  clerical  party  were  so  incensed  against  Jesus,  that  they  deter- 
mined to  let  nothing  stand  in  the  way  of  their  attempt  to  counteract 
his  influence.  Lazarus  was  now  obnoxious  to  them,  and  they  decided 
that  it  would  be  necessary  for  their  purpose  to  ]mt  him  to  death  as 
„  10  well  as  Jesus.  '  But  the  chief  priests  took  counsel  that  they  might 
put  Lazarus  also  to  death.'  He  had  become  so  conspicuous,  and  was 
saying  or  doing  so  much  in  favour  of  Jesus,  that  many  converts  were 
being  made,  who  turned  their  backs  upon  the  chief  priests  and 
„  n  professed  their  faith  in  Jesus  :  '  because  that  by  reason  of  him  many 
of  the  Jews  went  away,  and  believed  on  Jesus.'  Alford  observes  as 
follows  :  '  Eemember  here,  as  elsewhere  in  John,  the  Jews  are  not 
the  people,  but  the  rulers,  and  persons  of  repute  :  the  representatives 
of  the  Jewish  oppositmi  to  Jesus.'  How  can  that  be,  when  it  is  said 
that  'the  great  multitude  of  the  Jews'  went  to  see  Jesus  and  Lazarus, 
and  that  many  of  them  believed  ?  The  term  '  Jews '  appears  to 
denote  the  men  of  Jewry,  inhabitants  of  Judsea,  whose  only  oppor- 
tunity of  seeing  and  hearing  Jesus  was  when  he  came  into  their 
neighbourhood.  The  evangelist  gives,  without  comment,  a  bare 
statement  of  the  fact,  but  it  is,  by  itself,  a  frightful  example  of 
clerical  bigotry  and  persecution.  What  detestable,  sanguinary 
principles  of  action  have  cloaked  themselves  under  the  garb  of 
Eeligion,  and  made  the  professed  ministers  of  God  the  bitterest 
opponents  of  human  progress,  and  the  enemies  of  mankind  ! 

Luke  seems  to  intimate  that  the  parable  of  the  nobleman  who  was 
hated  by  his  citizens,  feared  by  his  servants,  and  who  exterminated  his 
enemies,  was  the  last  discourse  delivered  by  Jesus  on  his  journey  :  for 

111  Luke  2S  it  is  Said  :  '  And  when  he  had  thus  spoken,  he  went  on  before,  going 
up  to  Jerusalem.'  We  have  seen  that  he  reached  Bethany  six  days 
before  the  passover,  and  was  received  into  the  house  of  Simon  the 
leper.  On  approaching  the  place,  Jesus  had  given  to  two  of  his 
disciples  directions  of  a  very  remarkable  kind.  He  told  them  to  go 
into  the  neighbouring  village,  where  they  would  find  an  ass  tethered 

ai  Mat.  1. 2  and  a  colt  by  her  side.  '  And  when  they  drew  nigh  unto  Jerusalem, 
and  came  unto  Bethphage,  unto  the  mount  of  Olives,  then  Jesus  sent 


PART  II.]        A    STUDY    OF    THE    FOUli    GOSFl^JLS.  251 

two  disciples,  sayinji-  iiiito  them,  Go  into  the  villao-e  that  is  over 
agaiust  you,  and  straightway  ye  shall  find  an  ass  tied,  and  a  colt  with 
her.'  Mark  adds  the'fact  that  the  colt  was  unbroken  :  'And  when  n  M:iiki.2 
they  drew  uigh  unto  Jerusalem,  unto  Bethphage  and  Bethany,  at  the 
mount  of  Olives,  he  sendeth  two  of  his  disciples,  and  saith  unto  them. 
Go  your  way  into  the  \illage  that  is  over  against  you  :  and  straight- 
way as  ye  enter  into  it,  ye  shall  find  a  colt  tied,  whereon  no  man  ever 
yet  sat."'  Luke  uses  ^•ery  nearly  the  same  words  :  '  And  it  came  to  lo  Luke  20, 
pass,  when  he  drew  nigh 'unto  liethphage  and  Bethany,  at  the  mount  "^" 

tlnit  is  called  ihc  mount  of  Olives,  he  sent  two  of  the  disciples,  saying, 
Go  your  way  into  the  vilhige  over  against  you;  in  the  which  as  ye 
enter,  ye  shall  find  a  colt  tied,  whereon  no  man  ever  yet  sat.'  Such 
similarities  of  diction  between  three  historians  are  indications  that 
they  borrowed  from  a  common  narrative,  the  merely  verbal  differences 
arising  from  the  amplification  of  the  original,  which  would  probably 
be  in  the  form  of  condensed  notes.  In  this  instance,  there  may  have 
been  two,  and  could  have  been  no  more  than  two  independent  sources 
of  information.  Matthew  states  the  instruction  given  by  Jesus  in 
these  words  :  '  Loose  litem,  and  bring  them  unto  me.'  Young  renders  21  Mat.  ;> 
literally  :  '  Having  loosed,  bring  to  me.'  Only  Matthew  alludes  to 
the  ass  being  with"  the  colt.  j\Iark  and  Luke,  having  spoken  of  the 
colt  only,  use  the  same  expression  :  '  Loose  him  and  bring  him.' 
Thus  to  appropriate  another  person's  property  would  seem  extra- 
ordinary, and  required  some  warrant.  Jesus  admitted  as  nmcli,  and 
instructed  his  disciples  how  to  meet  the  difficulty.  '  And  if  any  one  „  :■. 
say  aught  unto  you,  ye  shall  say,  the  Lord  hath  need  of  them  ;  and 
straightway  he  will  send  them.'  Here  the  word  '  them '  is  no  inser- 
tion. Combining  the  evangelists,  it  would  seem  that  the  colt  only 
was  required,  but  the  she-ass  was  sent  with  him,  it  being  unadvisable 
to  separate  the  mother  from  her  foal.  Mark  and  Luke  still  allude  to 
the  latter  only.  '  And  if  any  one  say  unto  you,  Why  do  ye  10  Luke  31 
this  ?  say  ye.  The  Lord  hath  need  of  him  ;  and  straightway  he  will 
send  (Gr.  sendeth)  him  back  (or,  again)  hither.'  The  word  'back' 
(or,  again)  has  been  introduced  from  the  two  oldest  M8.  Luke  says 
merely,  '  And  if  any  one  ask  you,  Why  do  ye  loose  him  ?  thus  shall  ,,  si 
ye  say,  The  Lord  hath  need  of  him.'  The  omission  by  Luke  of  the 
assurance  given  by  Jesus  may  be  accounted  for  by  supposing  it  to 
have  been  absent  from  the  manuscript  from  which  Luke  compiled 
this  portion  of  the  history.  The  greater  the  demand  for  these  early 
records,  the  greater  also  would  be  the  difficidty  of  meeting  it  with 
promptitude,  the  copying  of  manuscripts  being  a  slow  process. 
Thence  it  might  well  hap])en  that  the  deficiency  was  supplied  by  the 
best  means  available,  and  that  abstracts  of  the  facts  might  be 
compiled  from  memory,  or  attempts  made  to  follow  in  writing  the 
reading  of  some  original  document.  This  would  sufficiently  account 
for  variations  and  omissions  which  do  not  amount  to  discrepancies. 

Matthew,  as  was  his  custom,  traced  in  the  event  a  fulfilment  of 
prophecy.     'Xow  this  is  come  to  pass,  that   it  might  be  fulfilled  1  Mat.  4,5 
which  was  spoken  by  (or,  through)  the  prophet,  saying, 

Tell  ye  the  daughter  of  Zion, 

Behold,  thy  king  cometh  unto  thee, 

Meek,  and  riding  upon  an  ass. 

And  upon  a  colt  the  foal  of  an  ass.' 


252  THE    KING    AND    THE    KINCWOM :  [part  ii. 


'.I  Zee.  0 


The  original  passage  stands  as  follows:  'Rejoice  greatly,  0  daughter 
of  Zion  ;  shout,  0  daughter  of  Jerusalem  :  Ijehold,  thy  king  cometh 
unto  thee  ;  he  is  just,  and  having  salvation,  lowly,  and  riding  upon 
an  ass,  even  upon  a  colt  the  foal  of  an  ass.'  Alford  observes  :  '  That 
this  riding  and  entry  were  intentional  on  the  part  of  our  Lord,  is 
clear  :  and  also  that  He  did  not  thereby  mean  to  give  any  coun- 
tenance to  the  temporal  ideas  of  His  Messiahship,  but  solemnly  to  fulfil 
the  Scriptures  respecting  Him,  and  to  prepare  the  way  for  His 
.sulferings,  by  a  public  avowal  of  His  mission,'  Jesus  seized  upon 
this  Scriptural  picture  as  illustrating  the  nature  of  the  kingdom  he 
desired  to  found.  The  homage  paid  to  him  must  be  natural  and 
spontaneous  :  justice,  salvation,  meekness,  constituted  the  basis  of 
liis  jwwer  and  influence  ;  he  resolved  to  make  himself  conspicuous 
in  this  particular  way  to  his  enthusiastic  followers,  and,  knowing  that 
his  death  was  very  near,  to  bequeath  to  the  world  this  pattern  of 
what  a  king's  triumphal  entry  ought  to  be.  It  is  not  to  be  supposed 
that  Jesus  would  have  been  any  less  the  Messiah  of  mankind,  if  he 
had  not  thus  literally  accomplished  the  terms  of  this  prophecy  ;  the 
incident  by  itself  proved  nothing,  convinced  nobody  ;  a  false  Christ 
might  have  assumed  the  same  position  ;  it  was  no  evidence  in  his 
favour  at  the  time,  for  we  are  expressly  told  that  his  disciples  had  no 
recollection  of  such  a  prophecy  ;  but  the  character,  the  doctrine,  the 
aims  of  Jesus  were  entirely  in  harmony  with  it,  and  he  would  let  the 
world  know  what  kind  of  sovereignty  he  claimed,  and  see,  once  for 
all,  a  true  pattern  of  regal  dignity. 

The  two  disciples  found  it  easy  to  accomplish  the  task  which  Jesus 
had  laid  upon  them.  Everything  happened  as  he  had  foretold,  and 
when  they  delivered  his  message  the  animal  was  at  once  given  over 

10  Luke  z-i-  for  his  use.     '  x\nd  they  that  were  sent  went  away,  and  found  even  as 

^"^  he  had  said  unto  them.  And  as  they  were  loosing  the  colt,  the  owners 
thereof  said  unto  them.  Why  loose  ye  the  colt  ?  And  they  said,  the 
Lord  hath  need  of  him.     And  they  brought  him  to  Jesus.'     Mark  is 

1 1  Mark  4-7  somcwhat  uiorc  precise.    '  And  they  went  away,  and  found  a  colt  tied  at 

the  door  without  in  the  open  street,  and  they  loose  him.  And  certain 
of  them  that  stood  there  said  unto  them,  What  do  ye,  loosing  the  colt  ? 
And  they  said  unto  them  even  as  Jesus  had  said  :  and  they  let  them 
go.  And  they  bring  the  colt  unto  Jesus.'  In  the  Authorised  Version 
the  locality  is  described  as  '  in  a  place  where  two  ways  met,'  which  is 
rendered  by  Tischendorf  '  on  the  crossway,'  and  l)y  Young  '  by  the  two 
ways.'  The  Revisers  have  altered  it  to  '  in  the  open  street.'  Alford 
explains  :  '  The  word  rendered  a  place  where  two  ways  met,  only  means, 
a  road  leadinij  round  a  place,  and  probably  imports  simply  the  street. 
Wordsworth  interprets  it,  tlie  back  way,  which  led  round  the  house. 
But  there  does  not  appear  to  be  any  reason  for  supposing  the  word 
round  to  refer  to  the  house,  rather  than  to  the  whole  block,  or  neigh-, 
bourhood,  of  houses,  round  about  which  the  street  led.  Dean  Trench 
Avould  render  it  a  way  round,  a  crooked  lane.''  Matthew's  account  is 
ii  Mat.  G  far  more  concise.  '  And  the  disciples  went,  and  did  even  as  Jesus 
appointed  them,  and  brought  the  ass,  and  the  colt.' 

As  the  message  of  Jesus  induced  the  owners  to  lend  their  property 
for  his  use,  it  is  natural  to  consider  in  what  sense  they  must  have 
understood  the  words,  '  The  Lord  hath  need  of  him.'  Alford's  note 
on  Matthew  is  as  follows  :  '  The  Lord,  here,  tlw  Lord,  Jehovah  .-  most 


PART  II.]         A    STUDY    OF    THE    FOUR    GOSPELS.  L^53 

probably  a  general  intimation  to  the  owners,  that  they  were  wanted 
for  thr  serrire  of  (iod.  I  cannot  see  how  this  interpretation  errs 
against  decorum,  as  Stier  asserts.  The  meanest  animals  might  be 
wanted  for  the  service  of  the  Lord  Jehovah.  And  after  all,  what 
difference  is  there  as  to  decorum,  if  we  understand  with  him  the  Lord 
to  signify  the  King  Messiah,  ? '  That  there  has  been  a  general 
tendency  towards  straining  the  sense  of  the  Avord  '  Lord  '  is  evident 
from  the  re[)eated  instances  in  which  Dr.  Young,  alone  among  trans- 
lators, renders  it  by  the  word  '  Sir.'  There  are  passages,  of  which  this 
is  one,  in  which  "  Sir"  cannot  be  nsed  ;  but  it  by  no  means  follows 
that  the  term  is  therefore  to  be  taken  in  such  cases  as  a]iplying  to  the 
Deity.  Probably  the  term  in  the  original  was  equi\alent  to  the 
German  word  '  Herr,'  and  used  in  the  same  manner,  either  in  speaking 
to  or  of  a  person  recognised  as  a  superior,  a  Master  or  Teacher.  That 
is  the  import  which  Jesus  himself  attached  to  the  word  :  '  Ye  call  me  is  Joim  i: 
Master  (or.  Teacher),  and,  Lord  :  and  ye  say  well ;  for  so  I  am.'  And 
again:  'A  servant  ((ir,  bondservant)  is  not  greater  than  his  lord.'  -,  n 
That  form  of  expression  was  in  general  use  between  man  and  man  ;  it 
was  also  used,  in  the  same  sense  of  snpremacy,  when  speaking  of  God. 
The  context  in  writing,  and  the  circumstances  in  speaking,  are  a  suffi- 
cient guide  as  to  the  intended  significance,  limitation,  or  extension,  of 
the  title.  In  the  case  before  us,  there  could  be  small  room,  or  none 
at  all,  for  nncertainty.  Jesns  had  come  into  the  neighbourhood 
accompanied  by  a  crowd  of  followers  ;  his  disciples  were  recognisable 
as  such,  and  when  two  of  them  went  together,  loosed  the  colt,  and 
explained  that  they  did  it  in  obedience  to  the  directions  of  the  lord  or 
master,  either  the  owners  must  have  at  once  understood  the  reference 
to  be  to  Jesus,  or  the  disciples  would  make  it  clear  that  it  was  he  who 
had  sent  them  and  who  required  the  animal.  If,  on  the  contrary,  it 
be  supposed  that  Jesus  was  kept  out  of  sight  in  the  transaction,  and 
that  two  strangers  simply  stated  that  they  were  taking  the  ass  because 
Jehovah,  the  God  of  Israel,  had  need  of  him,  there  is  much  force  in 
the  oljjection  of  Stier,  that  the  request  would  have  appeared  indecorous, 
and  would  not  have  been  instantly  and  unhesitatingly  complied  with. 
This  argument  is  all  the  stronger,  when  it  is  remembered  that  there 
Avas  no  idea  in  the  mind  of  any  one  that  the  fulfilment  of  a  prtiphecy 
was  in  question. 

The  disciples  simply  carried  out  the  instructions  of  Jesus,  and  every- 
thing happened  just  as  he  had  led  them  to  expect.  AYas  this  a  display 
of  supernatural  prescience  on  the  part  of  Jesus  ?  That  may  be  inferred 
from  the  uarrati\'e  ;  but  the  evangelists  themselves  have  not  touched 
upon  the  question.  We  can  easily  believe  that  one  who  displayed  such 
miraculous  powers,  and  applied  them  in  such  various  ways,  might 
possess  such  a  gift  of  foresight,  and  might  even  exercise  a  controlling- 
influence  on  others  by  his  own  force  of  will.  Or  it  may  be  that  in- 
visible Beings,  heavenly  messengers,  were  superintending  and  directing 
his  career,  revealing  to  him,  as  they  had  done  to  Mary  and  to  Joseph, 
the  things  which  were  about  to  happen.  In  this  instance,  however, 
Ave  are  not  tied  down  to  that  conclusion.  The  message,  '  the  Lord 
hath  need  of  him,'  may,  perchance,  haA'e  referred  to  some  preAious 
conference  between  Jesus  and  the  OAvners.  It  is  not  to  be  supposed 
that  he  Avas  never  Avas  out  of  sight  and  hearing  of  his  disciples,  that 
he  never  con\ersed  Avith  anyone  except  in  their  presence,  that  he  Avas 


254  THE    KING    AND    THE    KINGDOM:  [part  it. 

not  free  to  take  an  independent  conrse  and  arrange  a  plan  for  himself, 
Tiie  wording-  of  Mark's  narrative,  as  altered  by  the  Eevisers  on  the 
authority  of  the  two  oldest  MSS.,  seems  to  indicate  that  the  colt  had 
lately  been  to  the  place  where  Jesus  was.  The  Authorised  Version 
has  '  straightway  he  will  send  him  hither  ; '  the  word  '  back  {or, 
again) '  is  now  placed  before  'hither.'  The  three  evangelists  agree 
that  Jesus  told  his  disciples  they  would  discover  the  colt  immediately 
upon  entering  the  village  :  '  straightway  ye  shall  find,'  '  straightway  as 
ye  enter  into  it,'  '  in  the  which  as  ye  enter.'  Therefore  the  colt  had 
but  lately  passed  Jesus  on  its  way  to  the  village.  Moreover,  Jesus 
was  no  stranger  in  Bethany  ;  he  had  visited  the  place  before  ;  he  may 
have  known  the  abode  of  the  owners,  and  where  they  took  the  colt  on 
its  customary  round,  and  he  seems  to  have  relied  upon  their  know- 
ledge of  himself  as  a  sufficient  inducement  to  comply  unhesitatingly 
with  his  expressed  desire  :  '  straightway  he  will  send  them.'  Where- 
ever  Jesus  went  he  healed  many,  and  thereby,  as  well  as  through  his 
teachings,  must  have  gained  many  friends,  all  glad  to  serve  him  in 
anything  within  their  power.  The  apparent  mystery  is  capable  of 
solution  in  a  perfectly  natural  manner  ;  the  evangelists  have  not 
hinted  at  anything  supernatural,  and  it  would  ill  become  us  to  assert 
the  existence  of  a  marvel  with  respect  to  which  they  maintained  entire 
silence. 

The  colt  being  without  a  saddle,  one  was  extemporised  out  of  the 
u  Mark  r     garments  of  the  disciples,  and  then  Jesus  mounted  :  '  and  cast  on  him 
ii)Luke:35    their  garments  ;  and  he  sat  upon  him.'     'And  they  threw  their  gar- 
ments upon  the  colt,  and  set  J  esus  thereon.'     Matthew  adheres  to  the 
i-i  Mat.  7      plural  :  '  and  put  on  them  their  garments  ;  and  he  sat   thereon.' 
Then  ensued  a  scene  of  enthusiastic  exultation.     The  example  set  by 
the  disciples  was  imitated  by  the  multitude,  who  stripped  off  their 
,,    s      robes  and  laid  them  on  the  ground  over  which  he  was  to  pass.     'And 
the  most  part  of  the  multitude  spread  their  garments  in  the  way.' 
n  Mark  s     '  And  many  spread  their  garments  upon  the  way.'     '  And  as  he  went, 
19  Luke  3(5    they  spread  their  garments  in  the  way.'     Others  supplemented  this 
21  Mat.  s      with  a  carpet  of  leafy  boughs,  cut  off  from  the  trees.     '  And  others 
cut  branches  from  the  trees,  and  spread  them  in  the  way.'     Young 
11  Mark  s     renders  literally, '  were  cutting.'     '  And  others  branches  (Gr,  layers  of 
leaves),  which  they  had  cut  from  the  fields.'     The  Revisers,  following 
the  two  oldest  M8S.,  have  omitted  from  Mark  the  words  '  and  strawed 
them  in  the  way,'  which  were  probably  inserted  at  an  early  date  from 
Matthew.     Alford  notes  that   they  are   'omitted  in  many  ancient 
authorities,'  and  explains  :  '  the  word  signifies  not  merely  branches, 
but  branches  cut  /or  the  2mr})ose  of  being  littered  to  iccdlc,  on  :  and  this 
implies  the  strawing  in  the  wag,  which  has  been  unskilfully  suppUed.' 
The  expression  used  by  the  Revisers  in  Mark,  '  which  they  had  cut 
from  the  fields,'  agrees  with  Tischendorf's,  'having  cut  them  out  of 
the  fields,'  and  with  Alford's  statement  that  tliey  had  been  '  cut  for 
the   purpose.'     This  is  corroborated  by  the  fourth  evangelist,  who 
stated,  before  mentioning  the  riding  upon  the  ass,  that  the  multitude 
iijuhuii    had  taken  branches  of  palm  trees  and  gone  out  to  meet  Jesus.     'On 
the  morrow  a  great  multitude  that  had  come  to  the  feast,  when  they 
heard  that  Jesus  was  commg  to  Jerusalem,  took  the  branches  of  the 
palm  trees,  and  Avent  forth  to  meet  him.'     To  the  words,  '  a  great 
multitude,'  the  Revisers  have  affixed  the  note  :  'Some  ancient  autho- 


PART  II.]         A    STUDY    OF    THE    FOUR    GOSPELS.  255 

rities  read  f/ts  common  pcopU.''  Not  the  tlirce  oldest  MSS.,  liowever  : 
that  form  of  speech  looks  like  the  o-loss  of  some  commentator.  The 
coming  of  this  multitude  with  palms  in  their  hands  was  not  without 
a  meaninty.  Tliey  were  bent  on  honourinu'  Jesus  as  the  Messiah,  the 
expected  king  of  Israel,  and  with  loud  shouts  they  hailed  him  under 
that  title  :  '  and  cried  out,  Hosanna  :  Blessed  is  he  that  cometh  in  the  v. 
name  of  the  Lord,  even  the  King  of  Israel.'  When  the  ass  arrived, 
and  Jesus  had  been  placed  thereon,  the  prophetic  picture  was  com- 
plete. Here  was  just  such  a  king  as  Zechariah  had  foretold,  entering 
Jerusalem  in  just  such  a  way  as  he  described,  no  troops,  no  courtiers 
by  his  side,  no  insignia  of  royalty  upon  his  person,  nothing  in  his 
favour  except  the  two  things  w'hich  alone  give  real  dignity  to  a  king, 
— his  character,  and  the  willing  homage  of  his  people.  '  And  Jesus, 
having  found  a  young  ass,  sat  thereon,  as  it  is  written.  Fear  not, 
daughter  of  Zion  :  behold,  thy  King  cometh,  sitting  on  an  ass's  colt.' 
The  evangelist  summarises  the  sense  of  the  passage  without  adhering 
to  the  actual  words.  '  Fear  not '  is  not  in  the  original,  but  the  context 
clearly  conveyed  the  idea  of  protection  and  safety.  The  evangelist 
explains  that  there  was  no  thought  at  the  time  in  the  minds  of  any  of 
the  disciples,  of  the  prophecy  which  they  unconsciously  fulfilled. 
*  These  things  understood  not  his  disciples  at  the  first :  but  when  Jesus 
Avas  glorified  then  remembered  they  that  these  things  were  written  of 
him,  and  that  they  had  done  these  things  unto  him.'  The  gathering 
of  so  great  and  enthusiastic  a  multitude  on  this  occasion  was  due  to 
two  causes  :  (1)  they  '  had  come  to  the  feast,'  and  therefore  would  be 
under  the  influence  of  religious  ideas,  and  at  leisure  to  seek  out  and 
honour  the  great  Teacher  whose  probable  coming  to  Jerusalem  had 
been  eagerly  anticipated  ;  (2)  many  among  them  had  been  present 
when  Jesus  had  called  Lazarus  out  of  the  grave,  and  the  account  given 
by  these  eye-witnesses  of  that  miracle  excited  the  popular  imagination 
in  favour  of  Jesus,  and  resulted  in  this  form  of  public  ovation.  'The 
multitude  therefore  that  was  with  him  when  he  called  Lazarus  out  of 
the  tomb,  and  raised  him  from  the  dead,  bare  witness.  For  this  cause 
also  the  multitude  went  and  met  him,  for  that  they  heard  that  he  had 
done  this  sign.'  There  is  no  inconsistency  between  the  narratives  ; 
indeed,  they  throw  light  upon  each  other  :  John  says  nothing  about 
the  sending  forth  of  the  two  disciples  in  search  of  the  ass,  but  states 
simply  that  one  was  found  by  Jesus,  which  implies  that  some  means 
were  taken  by  him  to  obtain  it.  Matthew,  Mark  and  Luke  say  noth- 
ing about  the  coming  of  the  multitude  with  palms  and  singing,  which 
explains  the  otherwise  unaccountable  outburst  of  enthusiasm,  w'hich 
the  mere  fact  of  seeing  Jesus  riding  was  not  calculated  to  evoke.  The 
bearing  of  the  palms  harmonises  with  the  statement  of  Luke,  that 
layers  of  leaves  had  been  cut  from  the  fields  ;  and  the  strewing  of 
them  upon  the  road  would  naturally  lead  others  to  cut  branches  from 
the  trees  with  the  same  object,  as  described  by  MatthcAV.  In  the  same 
way,  the  stripping  off  of  their  garments  by  the  disciples  to  improvise 
a  saddle,  was  imitated  by  the  most  part  of  '  the  multitude,'  the  laying 
down  and  constant  replacing  of  the  garments  supplying  the  gaps 
between  the  carpet  of  greenery.  From  first  to  last  it  was  a  scene  of 
tumultuous  gladness.  The  multitude  divided  into  tw-o  bands,  one 
preceding  and  the  other  following,  Jesus  being  in  the  midst.  After  a 
time,  when  they  were  nearing  Jerusalem  and  had  reached  the  down- 


256  THE   KING    AND    THE   KINGDOM:  [pakt  ir. 

ward  slope  of  the  mount  of  Olives,  the  song  with   which  he  had 
been    hailed    at    starting    was    taken    up   and    added   to    by   his 

m  Luke  37,  dlsciples.  '  And  as  he  Avas  now  drawing  nigh,  even  at  the  descent 
^^  of  the  mount  of  Olives,  the  whole  multitude  of  the  disciples  began 
to  rejoice  and  praise  God  with  a  loud  voice  for  all  the  mighty 
works  (Gr.  powers)  which  they  had  seen  ;  saying,  Blessed  is  the  King 
that  cometh  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  :  peace  in  heaven,  and  glory  in 
the  highest.'  That  was  well  suited  to  the  mouths  of  professed  dis- 
ciples, and  was,  as  Luke  intimates,  rather  an  acknowledgment  of  the 
work  which  Jesus  had  done  than  a  claim  for  his  future  supremacy  : 
the  words  'peace  in  heaven  and  glory  in  the  highest '  sufficiently 
indicated  that  no  earthly  kingship  was  in  the  minds  of  these  his 
followers  when  they  greeted  him  as  '  the  King  that  cometh  in  the 
name  of  tlie  Lord.'  The  expression  '  King  of  Israel '  is  dropped  by 
the  disciples,  and  also  the  word  '  Hosanna,'  which  might  be  open  to 
misconstruction  by  the  enemies  of  Jesus.  Alford  explains  :  '  Hosanna 
■ — from  Psalm  cxviii.  25  =  save  now.'  The  Psalm  runs  :  'Save  now, 
we  beseech  thee,  0  Lord.'  The  crowd  composed  of  visitors  to  the 
feast  had  started  that  cry,  and  however  discreet  some  of  his  disciples 
may  have  been,  knowing  how  he  had  once  charged  them  to  tell  no  man 
that  he  was  the  Christ,  the  multitude  were  enamoured  with  that  idea, 

21  Milt.  ('  and  took  it  up  enthusiastically,  '  And  the  multitudes  that  went  before 
him,  and  that  followed,  cried,  saying,  Hosanna  to  the  son  of  David  : 
Blessed  is  he  that  cometh  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  ;  Hosanna  in  tlio 

n  Mark  !i,  10  highest.'  '  And  they  that  went  before,  and  they  that  followed,  cried, 
Hosanna  ;  Blessed  is  he  that  cometh  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  : 
Blessed  is  the  kingdom  that  cometh,  the  Icing dom  of  our  father 
David  :  Hosanna  in  the  highest.'  It  could  not  be  helped  :  the  con- 
ception of  a  temporal  sovereign,  and  of  a  kingdom,  not  '  of  God,'  not 
'  of  heaven,'  but  '  of  David,'  was  ever  uppermost  in  men's  minds. 

Not  all  among  the  multitude  participated  in  these  demonstrations. 
There  was  a  sprinkling  of  Pharisees,  who  had  come  to  watch  and  criticise. 
There  was  much  that  a  hostile  and  fastidious  observer  might  object 
to.  Not  every  man  in  those  days,  any  more  than  now,  would  strip 
off  his  coat  in  the  open  air,  without  caring  about  conventional 
etiquette.  The  social  status  of  the  class  composing  the  crowd  might 
be  judged  thereby.  It  was  all  very  well  for  fishermen  and  others 
whose  daily  toil  made  such  an  action  habitual,  to  be  thus  enthusiastic 
and  demonstrative,  but  well-bred,  cultured  onlookers,  who  were  care- 
ful to  make  broad  their  phylacteries  and  enlarge  the  borders  of  their 
garments,  were  little  likely  to  use  their  robes  for  such  a  purpose  or  in 
such  a  fashion.  The  fact  repeatedly  stares  us  in  the  face,  and  here 
is  another  evidence  of  it,  that  the  bulk  of  the  disciples  and  welcomers 
of  Jesus  consisted  of  what  would  now  be  designated  by  the  super- 
cilious term,  '  the  lower  orders,'  or  more  correctly  '  the  working- 
classes.'  The  men  and  women  who,  chiefly,  came  under  the  influence 
of  Jesus  resembled  those  composing  the  '  Salvation  Army,'  who  of 
late  years  have  been  sought  out  and  gained  by  '  General '  Booth  and 
his  coadjutors.  The  very  chiefest  of  the  apostles,  Peter  and  John, 
in  the  full  tide  of  their  spiritual  gifts  and  successful  preaching,  were 

4A-jtsi3  classed  by  the  priestly  rulers  of  the  Jews  as  'unlearned  and  ignorant 
men.'  There  Avere  Pharisees  who  looked  scornfully  and  disapprov- 
ingly on  this  scene  of  which  Jesus  was  so  conspicuously  the  central 


I'ARTii.]         A    STUDY    OF    THE    FOUR    GOSPELS.  257 

figure,  and  as  the  cavalcade  swept  onwards  they  expostulated  with 
him  on  the  nnseeniliness  of  such  proceedings,  and  urged  liim  to  check 
his  disciples  in  their  singing.  '  And  some  of  the  Pharisees  irom  the  i'.>L"ke3o 
multitude  said  unto  him,  INIaster  (or.  Teacher),  rebuke  thy  disciples.' 
Their  chant  of  praise,  as  recorded  by  Luke,  had  nothing  in  it  about 
'the  king  of  Israel,'  or  'the  kingdom  of  David.'  Whatever  the 
multitudes  might  shout,  the  disciples,  trained  and  taught  by  Jesus, 
were  not  likely  tu  give  expression  to  such  ideas.  The  chosen  apostles 
were  careful,  perhaps  were  diivcted  by  him,  to  lead  the  thoughts  and 
voices  of  the  multitude  into  a  higher,  holier  channel.  Mo  rejoice  and 
praise  (!od  with  a  loud  voice  for  all  the  mighty  works  which  they 
had  seen  ; '  and  their  salutation  of  Jesus  as  '  the  King  that  coraeth 
in  the  name  of  the  Lord,'  coupled  with  the  refrain  'peace  in  heaven, 
and  glory  in  the  highest,'  conveyed  no  thought  of  an  earthly  throne 
and  kingdom.  Jesus  replied  that  the  eulogy  well  beseemed  his  life- 
work  and  his  teaching,  and  if  the  good  works  he  had  showed  them 
from  the  Father  were  forbidden  to  be  mentioned  by  the  tongues  of 
his  disciples,  the  very  stones  might  be  expected  to  proclaim  them. 
•  And  he  answered  and  said,  I  tell  you  that,  if  these  shall  hold  their  .>  ^o 
peace,  the  stones  will  cry  out.'  By  selecting  so  strong  an  hyperbole 
Jesus,  in  the  most  emphatic  way  possible,  justified  hi;;  disciples  and 
condemned  the  Pharisees.  Not  long  ago  they  had  banished  him 
from  Judfea,  and  they  were  now  surprised  and  angered  to  find  him 
setting  at  naught  their  decree,  and  actually  about  to  enter  Jerusalem 
amid  the  enthusiastic  acclamations  of  the  populace.  'The  Pharisees  i2.j.iiiuio 
therefore  said  among  themselves.  Behold  (or,  Ye  behold)  how  ye 
prevail  nothing  :  lo,  the  world  is  gone  after  him.'  But  there  was  no 
triumph,  only  sorrow,  in  the  heart  of  Jesus.  He  knew  well  what 
would  be  the  fatal  result  to  himself  of  this  his  last  visit,  and  he  fore- 
saw also  the  certain  ruin  of  Jerusalem  in  days  not  far  distant. 
As  he  approached  the  city  his  soul  grew  sad,  and  when  he  saw  it 
stretched  out  before  him,  his  emotions  of  grief  and  pity  found  vent 
in  tears.  In  short,  sobbing  sentences,  he  bewailed  the  coming  evils, 
all  of  which  might  have  been  prevented  if  only  the  citizens  had 
known  what  was  the  true  basis  of  peace  and  prosperity.  'And  when  lo  Luke: 41, 
he  drew  nigh,  he  saw  the  city  and  wept  over  it,  saying,  If  thou  (or,  ''"" 

0  that  thou)  hadst  known  in  this  day,  even  thou,  the  things,  which 
belong  unto  peace  !  but  now  they  are  hid  from  thine  eyes.'  The 
national  policy  and  the  temper  of  the  people  would  culminate  in 
rebellion,  a  trial  of  strength  and  endurance  bet^veen  them  and  their 
enemies,  bringing  on  the  city  the  horrors  of  a  weary  siege,  cruel, 
relentless  carnage,  and  resulting  finally  in  utter  defeat  and  devasta- 
tion. '  For  the  days  shall  come  upon  thee,  when  thine  enemies  will  "  ^s,  u 
cast  up  a  bank  (Gr.  palisade)  about  thee,  and  compass  thee  round, 
and  keep  thee  in  on  every  side,  and  shall  dash  thee  to  the  ground, 
and  thy  children  within  thee  ;  and  they  shall  not  leave  in  thee 
one  stone  upon  another.'  In  all  human  history,  national  as  well 
as  individual,  the  Present  is  ever  the  father  of  the  Future.  '  If  thou 
hadst  known  in  this  day,'  said  Jesus  ;  (that  is  the  reading  of  the  two 
oldest  MSS.,  omitting  the  word  '  thy  '  before  day)  :  his  teaching  was 
meant  to  be  the  salvation  of  the  people,  but  being  thwarted  and 
repudiated  the  opportunity  was  lost,  and  another  chapter  must  be 
added  to  the  bloodstained  page  of  history,  another  attempt  to  conquer 


258  THE   KING    AND    THE    KINGDOM:  [part  ii. 

19  Luke  44  forcG  Lv  fovcc,  another  triumph  of  might  over  right :  '  Because  thou 
knewest  not  the  time  of  thy  visitation.'  This  was  not  the  only  occa- 
sion when  Jesus  gave  expression  to  these  thoughts,  in  conjunction 
with  a  lamentation  over  Jerusalem,  The  records  of  the  Past  were 
ominous  in  the  extreme.  'It  cannot  be,'  he  once  said,  '  that  a 
prophet  perish  out  of  Jerusalem.'  And  then  he  uttered  an  apostrophe, 
very  similar  to  the  foregoing,  conceived  in  the  same  spirit  and  con- 
is  Luke  34,  veying  the  same  ideas.  '0  Jerusalem,  Jerusalem,  which  killeth  the 
^^  prophets,  and  stoneth  them  that  are  sent  unto  her  !  how  often  would 
I  liave  gathered  thy  children  together,  even  as  a  hen  gathereth  her 
own  brood  under  her  wings,  and  ye  would  not !  Behold,  your  house 
is  left  unto  you  desolate :  and  I  say  unto  you,  Ye  shall  not  see  me, 
until  ye  shall  say.  Blessed  is  he  that  cometh  in  the  name  of  the 
Lord.'  Taking  the  passages  together,  they  elucidate  each  other.  In 
the  first  place,  however,  a  few  technical  points  have  to  be  considered. 
The  Revisers  have  altered  '  sent  unto  thee  '  to  '  sent  unto  her '  whicli 
is  the  rendering  of  Young  and  Tischendorf.  The  italicised  word 
'gathereth'  is  omitted  by  Young,  not  being  in  the  original.  The 
Eevisers  have  omitted  to  italicise  '  her '  before  wings  ;  Young  and 
Tischendorf  render  'the  wings.'  The  Revisers  have  italicised  the 
word  '  desolate,'  which  is  not  in  the  three  oldest  MSS.  and  is  omitted 
by  Young,  Tischendorf  and  Alford.  The  Authorised  Version  has 
'  until  f/ie  time  come  when  ye  shall  say,'  which  is  rendered  by  Young, 
'  till  it  come  when  ye  may  say,'  altered  by  the  Revisers  in  accordance 
with  the  two  oldest  MSS.  to  '  till  ye  shall  say.'  It  is  probable,  as  is 
supposed  by  many,  that  these  verses  have  been  inserted  unchrono- 
logically  by  Luke.  If  he  were  in  doubt  where  they  ought  properly  to 
be  placed,  it  would  be  natural  for  him  to  bring  them  in,  iis  he  has 
done,  immediately  after  the  mention  of  Jerusalem.  In  Matthew 
they  occupy  a  ditterent  position,  being  introduced  immediately  after 
'23  Mat.  37-  ^he  Condemnation  of  the  Pharisees,  '  0  Jerusalem,  Jerusalem,  which 
killeth  the  prophets,  and  stoneth  them  that  are  sent  unto  her  !  how 
often  would  I  have  gathered  thy  children  together,  even  as  a  hen 
gathereth  her  chickens  under  her  wings,  and  ye  w'ould  not !  Behold, 
your  house  is  left  unto  you  desolate.  For  I  say  unto  you.  Ye  shall 
not  see  me  henceforth  till  ye  shall  say,  Blessed  is  he  that  cometh  in 
the  name  of  the  Lord.'  The  chief  point  of  difference  is  the  intro- 
duction in  Matthew  of  the  word  '  henceforth.'  There  is  some  doubt 
as  to  the  word  '  desolate,'  which  the  Revisers  note  is  '  omitted  by 
some  ancient  authorities.'     It  does  not  appear  in  the  Vatican  MS. 

The  import  of  the  expression, '  Because  thou  knewest  not  the  time 
of  thy  visitation,'  now  becomes  clear.  Jesus  had  often  sought  to 
draw^  Jerusalem  to  himself,  but  his  efforts  had  failed.  The  simile  he 
chose  was  striking  and  peculiar  :  '  How  often  did  I  desire  to  gather 
thy  children  together,  even  as  a  hen  gathers  her  chickens  under  the 
wing,  and  ye  desired  not '  (Tischendorf).  The  dread  of  a  coming 
danger  was  in  his  mind,  and  he  knew  that  only  the  protection  he 
offered  could  save  them  from  it.  Yet  his  mode  of  defence  was  not 
after  the  fashion  of  the  world  :  he  urged  no  resistance,  he  uttered  no 
rallying  cry,  he  wielded  no  w^eapon  of  defence,  but  simply  tried  to 
attract  men  to  himself,  induce  them  to  lay  aside  every  thought  of 
violence,  and  keep  their  souls  in  charity  and  peace.  If  his  kingdom 
had  been  of  this  world,  then  would  his  servants  have  fought  ;  but 


PART  II.]         A    STUDY    OF    THE    FOUR    GOSPELS.  259 

liis  only  effort  and  aim  was  to  save  others  by  sacrificin;^  himself  : 

*■  If  therefore  ye  seek  me,  let  these  go  their  way  :  that  the  word  might  isjoims,  o 

be  fulHlled  which  he  spake,  Of  those  whom  thou  hast  given  me,  I 

lost  not  one.'     The  spirit  and  teaching  of  Jesus  forbade  any  resort  to 

violence  and  bloodshed,  and  led  all  who  came  to  him  to  seek  the 

rectification  of  wrong  and  evil  by  other   means,  to  overcome  the 

world  by  peace,  and  antidote  its  tribulations  by  the  hope  and  foretaste 

of  the  kingdom  of  (lod  and  heaven.     '  Peace  I  lea\'e  with  you  ;  my  ]4.)..im  -.'r 

peace  I  give  unto  you  :  not  as  the  world  giveth,  gi\e  1  unto  you. 

Let  not  your  heart  be  troubled,  neither   let   it   be   fearful.'     That 

was  his  panacea  for  the  trials  of  the  time  then  present.     True,  his 

wisdom  then,  as  now,  seemed  folly  to  the  world  ;  only  his  disciples 

could   receive  and  comprehend   his   saying:    'These  things  have  Iiojoimss 

spoken  unto  you,  that  in  me  ye  may  have  peace.     In  the  world  ye 

have  tribulation  :  but  be  of  good  cheer  ;  I  have  overcome  the  world.' 

Few  indeed  were  they  who  embraced  that  doctrine,  and  thence  Ids 

lamentation  over  Jerusalem  :  '  0  that  thou  hadst  known  in  this  day, 

even   tliou,  tlie   things   which   belong   unto   peace.'     The   old,   old 

warlike  spirit  must  needs  revive,  the  cry  of  patriotism  uprise,  instead 

of  that  nobler  aspiration  after  a  heavenly  inheritance  to  which  .lesus 

called  his  followers,  swords  must  clash,  and  blood  must  flow,  and 

brute  force  triumph  as  of  yore.     The  tears  of  Jesus  were  shed  over 

his  own  lost  cause  in  Jerusalem.     It  was  appointed  to  him  that  he 

should  die  for  the  people,  and  if  he  could  only  have  drawn  them 

to   himself,  the   nation   would   have  been  saved,  and   the  ultimate 

triumph  of  Christianity  antedated  by  many,  none  can  say  how  many, 

centuries.     To  the  high  priest  alone  was  given  a  prophetic  insight  of 

this  truth  :  '  A  certain  one  of  them,  Caiaphas,  being  high  priest  that  h  JmIhi  4ii- 

_year,  said  unto  them,  Ye  know  nothing  at  all,  nor  do  ye  take  account  '" 

that  it  is  expedient  for  you  that  one  man  should  die  for  the  people, 

imd  that  the  whole   nation  perish  not.     Xow  this  he  said  not  of 

himself  :  but  being  high  priest  that  year,  he  prophesied  that  Jesus 

.should  die  for  the  nation  ;  and  not  for  the  nation  only,  but  that  he 

might  also  gather  together  into  one  the  children  of  God  that  are 

scattered  abroad.'     Not  until  the  whole  body  of  Christians  are  thus 

gathered  together  into  one  united  heavenly-minded  phalanx,  taking 

all  the  precepts  of  Jesus  for  their  creed  and  heritage,  and  suffering  no 

admixture  of  earthly  elements  with  his  pure,  unwoiidly  doctrine,  can 

Christianity  assume  the  form  Avhich  its  founder  sought  to  give  it,  and 

.bless  mankind  with  the  salvation  which  he  offered  them. 

The  omission  of  the  word  '  desolate  '  from  the  three  oldest  MS8.  in 
Luke,  and  from  the  Vatican  and  other  ancient  authorities  in  Matthew, 
may  be  taken  to  indicate  either  that  the  word  was  first  introduced  by 
Commentators  to  suit  their  view  of  the  sense  intended,  or  at  the 
least,  that  no  stress  is  to  be  laid  upon  the  word  in  interpreting 
the  passage.  The  expression,  '  Behold,  your  house  is  left  unto  you,' 
•conveys  the  idea  of  the  withdrawal  of  any  attempt  at  guidance  or 
interference  on  the  part  of  Jesus.  It  was  their  own  house,  '  your 
house,'  and  it  must  now  be  '  left  unto  '  them,  to  manage  and  rule  as 
they  thought  fit.  This  seems  to  be  admitted  by  Alford,  although  he 
at  the  same  time  thought  there  was  an  allusion  to  the  temple.  He 
says  :  '  No  more  GocVs  but  your  house — said  primarily  of  the 
temple, — then  of  Jerusalem, — and  then  of  the  whole  land  in  which  ye 

8  2 


260  THi:    KING    AND    THE    KINGDOM:  [part  ii- 

dwell  ! '  The  efforts  of  Jesus  to  guide  and  save  them  having  been 
repulsed,  the  people  must  be  left  to  their  own  devices.  This 
interpretation  of  the  passage  harmonises  Avith  what  precedes,  and  also 
with  the  words  which  follow  :  '  Ye  shall  not  see  me  henceforth,  till 
ye  shall  say,  Blessed  is  he  that  cometh  in  the  name  of  the  Lord/ 
Jesus  could  attempt  no  more  ;  he  must  leave  them  to  themselves,  and 
wait  until  they  were  prepared  to  welcome  him  as  the  divinely- 
commissioned  Saviour.  We  see  that  the  words  of  the  carol  sung  by 
the  disciples  on  the  occasion  of  his  triumphal  approach  to  Jerusalem 
not  only  met  his  approval  but  were  adopted  by  Jesus  himself. 

When  the  procession  of  discii)les  and  others  entered  the  city, 
the  inhabitants   naturally   manifested   considei'able  excitement  and 

L'l  ji.it.  10  curiosity.  'And  when  he  was  come  into  Jerusalem,  all  the  city  was 
stirred,  saying,  Who  is  this  ?  '  The  visits  of  Jesus  to  the  metropolis 
being  only  occasional,  he  was  not  so  Avell  known  there  as  in  Galilee. 
,,  11  *  And  the  multitudes  said,  This  is  the  prophet,  Jesus,  from  Nazareth 
of  Galilee.'  The  distance  between  the  two  places  being  considerably 
over  50  miles,  the  career  of  Jesus  did  not  come  within  the  cognizance 
of  dwellers  at  Jerusalem.  His  visits  were  at  festival  times,  when 
there  was  a  large  influx  of  strangers  ;  probably  most  of  those  who 
sought  him  out  at  Jerusalem  and  attended  his  preaching  there,  had 
become  acquainted  with  him  in  Galilee  or  elsewhere. 

Jesus  at  once  proceeded  to  the  temple,  and  manifested  much 
interest  in  what  he  saw^  going  on  about  him.  The  night  was 
approaching,  he  had  freed  himself  from  the  presence  of  the  clamorous 
multitude,  keeping  with  him  only  the  twelve  apostles,  and  with  them 
he  retired  to  Bethany,  which  was  about  a  mile  and   a   half  from 

11  Mark  11  Jerusalem.  'And  he  entered  into  Jerusalem,  into  the  temple  ;  ancJ 
when  he  had  looked  round  about  upon  all  things,  it  being  now 
eventide,  he  w'ent  out  unto  Bethany  wdth  the  twelve.'  The  next 
morning  they  returned  to  Jerusalem,  and  Jesus,  ever  more  anxious 
about  his  work  than  about  his  food,  began  to  suffer  from  hunger. 
vi    '  And  on  the  morrow,  when  they  were  come  out  from  Bethany,  he 

2i  Mat.  IS  hungered.'  Matthew  adds  that  it  was  in  the  morning.  '  Now  in  the 
morning  as  he  returned  to  the  city,  he  hungered.'  The  expression 
'  as  he  returned,'  may  be  taken  to  indicate  that  he  had  started 
without  breakfasting,  and  felt  exhausted  on  the  journey.  On  the- 
u,  road  he  saw  a  solitary  fig  tree,  and  made  his  way  towards  it.  '  And 
seeing  a  (or,  a  single)  fig  tree  by  the  way  side,  he  came  to  it.'' 
Mark  explains  that  it  was  at  some  distance,  and  was  seen  to  be  in 
leaf,  so  that  it  was  possible,  though  by  no  means  certain,  that  fruit 

11  j!uiki3  also  might  be  found  on  it.  'And  seeing  a  fig  tree  afar  off  having 
leaves,  he  came,  if  haply  he  might  find  anything  thereon.'  The  word 
'  haply  '  implies  that  it  was  a  mere  chance,  and  the  slender  hope  was 

iijiat.  10  doomed  to  disappointment ;  '  and  found  nothing  thereon,  but  leaves- 
only.'  Mark  explains  that  the  season  was  not  sufficiently  advanced 
to  justify  the  expectation  of  fruit  being  found  as  a  matter  of  course  r. 

11  Mark  13  '  and  whcii  he  came  to  it,  he  found  nothing  but  leaves;  for  it  was 
not  the  season  of  figs.'  Having  ascertained  the  fact,  Jesus  uttered 
some  very  remarkable  words,  not  to  his  companions,  but  to  the  tree 

•21  Mat.  19     itself     '  And   he  saith  unto  it,  Let  there  be   no   fruit  from   thee 

ji  3iaik  14  henceforward  for  ever.'  Mark  is  to  the  same  effect  :  '  And  he- 
answered  and  said  unto  it.  No  man  eat  fruit  from  thee  henceforward 


PART  II. J         A    STUDY    OF    'THE    FOUR    GOSPFLS.  261 

for  ever.  And  his  disciples  heard  it.'  It  \Yas  a  strai],2:e  tliiug  to  say. 
Wliy  did  Jesus  say  it  ?  Was  it  a  mere  expression  drojipcd  in  haste, 
anger,  disai)pointinent,  vindicfcivencss  ?  That  would  be  contrary 
to  all  we  know  of  Jesus.  No  question  appears  to  have  been  asked, 
no  comment  made.  They  went  on  their  way,  sjient  the  day  in 
Jerusalem,  returned  to  Bethany,  and  the  next  inornino-  passed  the 
spot  again.  Then  the  incident  was  recalled  to  their  minds.  There 
stood  the  tree  :  but  what  had  happened  to  it  ?  Its  foliage  was 
fading,  and  a  close  examination  showed  that  it  had  withered  from, 
the  root  upwards.  '  And  as  they  passed  by  in  the  morning,  they  saw  ii  Mark-i<i 
the  fig  tree  withered  away  from  the  roots.'  Matthew  condenses  the 
account,  saying  nothing  about  the  intervening  day,  but  simply, 
'  And  immediately  the  fig  tree  withered  away.'  The  word  '  imme-  21  Mat.  m 
diateiy '  stands  in  the  Authorised  Version  as  '  presently  ;  '  Young 
renders:  '  And  fortJiwith  the  fig  tree  withered.'  The  disciples  were 
astounded  at  so  inexplicable  a  i:)henomenon.  The  Authorised  Version 
])nts  their  words  in  the  form  of  an  exclamation  of  surprise.  '  And 
when  the  disciples  saw  it,  they  marvelled,  saying,  How  soon  is  the 
fig  tree  withered  away  ! '  Tischendorf  agrees  with  that,  but  Young 
renders  it  as  a  question  :  'And  the  disciples  having  seen,  wondered, 
saying,  How  did  the  fig-tree  forthwith  wither  ?  '  and  the  Revisers  „  21) 
have  done  the  same.  'And  when  the  disciples  saw  it,  they  marvelled, 
saying,  How  did  the  fig  tree  immediately  wither  away  ? '  One  of  the 
disciples  called  the  attention  of  Jesus  to  the  circumstance.  '  And  u  Mark  21 
Peter  calling  to  remembrance  saith  nnto  him,  Rabbi,  behold,  the 
lig  tree  which  thou  cursedst  is  withered  away.'  The  Revisers  have 
altered  'Master'  to  'Rabbi,'  therein  agreeing  with  Tischendorf, 
Young  and  Alford.  The  term  was  equivalent  to  'Teacher,'  and  was 
by  itself  a  mark  of  distinction,  and  on  that  account  coveted  by  the 
Pharisees,  for  Jesus  once  described  them  as  loving  '  to  be  called  of  2:;  Mat.  7,  s 
men  Rabbi,'  and  added,  '  But  be  not  ye  called  Rabbi,  for  one  is  your 
teacher,  and  all  ye  are  brethren.'  The  companionship  between 
Jesus  and  his  disciples,  however  intimate,  was  not,  could  not  be  of  an 
ordinary  kind.  They  had  always  a  becoming  sense  of  his  superiority, 
and  the  esteem  and  honour  in  which  they  held  him  appear  frequently 
in  their  mode  of  addressing  him. 

In  the  opinion  of  the  disciples  the  utterance  of  Jesus  was  a  male- 
diction :  Peter  did  not  scruple  to  say,  '  the  fig  tree  which  thou 
oursedst.'  The  miracle  can  be  regarded  in  no  other  light.  For  this 
once,  the  power  of  Jesus  was  put  forth  to  blight  and  destroy,  instead 
of  to  bless  and  heal.  Such  an  act  could  benefit  no  one  :  to  kill  a 
£ruit-producing  tree  because  it  did  not  bear  prematurely,  offends  our 
notions  of  wisdom  and  benevolence.  That  Jesus  did  this  thing,  can 
make  no  difference  in  the  judgment  we  pass  upon  it.  In  some 
mysterious  way,  he  had  thwarted  the  operation  of  the  laws  of  nature 
with  respect  to  this  tree,  so  that  it  ceased  to  draw  nourishment  out 
of  the  earth  and  the  elements,  and  was  transformed  into  a  barren, 
useless  stock.  Once  he  had  spoken  a  parable  about  a  fig-tree,  repre- 
senting it  to  have  been  fruitless  for  three  years  together,  and  yet 
when  the  owner  decided  to  cut  it  down,  the  experienced  vinedresser 
pleaded  for  a  fourth  year's  trial,  to  see  the  effect  of  increased  care 
and  culture.  That  parable  harmonised  with  the  mind  and  teaching 
of  Jesus  ;  but  now  his  own  deed  runs  counter  to  it ;  he  goes  out  of 


262  THE   KING    AND    THE    KINGDOM:  [part  ii. 

his  way,  to  seek  for  figs  out  of  season,  and  failing  to  find  them,  he 
anathematises  the  tree  and  withers  its  root.     Again  the  question 
presses  :  Why  did  he  do  this  ?     Doubtless  he  had  a  motive.     He 
himself  gave  the  clue  thereto,  and  explained  the  significance  of  his 
11  Mark 22    action.     'And  Jesus  answering  saith  unto  them,  Have  faith  in  God.* 
That  is  the  key  note  of  the  explanation.     To  blast  the  fig  tree  by  a 
word,  was  the  very  i-everse  of  faith  in  God  :  it  was  an  interference 
with  the  divinely-arranged  system  of  the  universe,  a  transgression 
against  the  beneficent  ]a\YS  of  nature,  an  exercise  of  human  influence 
in  opposition  to  the  will  of  God,  by  whose  providence  the  fruit  tree 
bears  fruit  after  its  kind  and  in  its  proper  season.     The  tongue  and 
will  of  man  are  potent,  aye  !  omnipotent,  in  the  direction  of  such 
„     23    evils.     Jesus  asserted  that  fact :  '  Yerily  I  say  unto  you,  Whosoever 
shall  say  unto  this  mountain,  Be  thou  taken  up  and  cast  into  the 
sea  ;  and  shall  not  doubt  in  his  heart,  but  shall  believe  that  what  he 
saith  Cometh  to  pass  ;  he  shall  have  it.'     The  Sinaitic  MS.  begins  :  '  If 
you  have  faith  in  God,  verily  I  say  unto  you  .  .  ,'  but  that  reading, 
although  indicated  by  Tischendorf  was  not  adopted  by  him.     In  the 
Authorised  Version  the  verse  ends  with  the  words,  '  he  shall  have 
whatsoever  he  saith,'  which  is  uow  altered  to,  '  he  shall  have  it,'  in 
accordance  with  the  two  oldest  MSS.     Matthew's  fuller  record  of  the 
Avords  of  Jesus  places  the  uprooting  of  the  mountain  and  the  withering- 
si  Mat.  21     of  the  fig  tree  in  the  same  category.     '  And  Jesus  answered  and  said 
unto  them.  Verily  I  say  unto  you,  If  ye  have  faith,  and  doubt  not, 
ye  shall  not  only  do  what  is  done  to  the  fig  tree,  but  even  if  ye  shall 
say  unto  this  mountain.  Be  thou  taken  up  and  cast  into  the  sea,  it 
shall  be  done.'     The  Authorised  Version  stands  :  '  ye  shall  not  only 
do  this  whkh  is  done  to  the  fig  tree  ; '  omitting  the  italicised  words 
'  which  is  done,'  the  sentence  would  stand,  '  ye  shall  not  only  do  this 
to  the  fig  tree.'     This  brings  out  the  character  of  the  action  itself,  as 
does  also  Young's  literal  rendering  :  '  not  only  this  of  the  fig  tree 
shall  ye  do.'     The  acts  are  of  the  same  kind  :  both  abnormal,  needless, 
destructive,   interfering    with    the   settled    order    of   the   universe, 
bringing   no  advantage   to   mankind,  but  the  reverse,  introducing 
confusion   into   the   harmony   of    nature,  the   human   will,   selfish, 
passionate,  reckless,  setting  itself  against  physical  arrangements  and 
sequences  ordained  from   of  old   by  the  will   of   God.     Jesus  was 
hungry,  sought   fruit,  found   none,  and   instantly   cursed   the   tree 
appointed  to  bear  it.     There  was  none  to  say  him  nay  :  he  had  the 
power,  a  faith  in  his  own  word  sufficient  for  the  purpose,  and  he 
spoke  the  word  and  exercised  the  poAver.     What  he  had  done,  others 
also  could  do  :  there  is  no  limit  to  the  oi^eration  of  man's  will  up  to 
the  point  in  which  he  has  confidence  in  himself.     True,  no  man  save 
Jesus  knew  the  secret  of  working  that  mighty  spiritual  influence; 
but  in  the  direction  of  beneficence  he  had  imparted  it  to  some  extent . 
to  his  disciples,  and  when  they  on  one  occasion  had  failed  in  their 
attempt  to  imitate  him,  he  had  attributed  their  want  of  success  to  a 
lack  of  faith,  Avhich  faith  he  now  declares  to  be  an  influence  more 
subtile  than  the  process  of  vegetable  life,  and  mightier  than  the  force 
of  gravitation.     Jesus  is  asserting  the  existence  of  a  common  attri- 
bute of  humanity  :  '  Whosoever  shall  say  .  .  shall  not  doubt  in  his 
heart  .  .  shall  believe  that  what  he  saith  cometh  to  pass  .  .  ye  shall 
not  only  do  what  is  done  .  .  but  even  if  ye  shall  say  .  .  it  shall  be 


PART  II.]         A    STUDY   OF    THE    FOUR    GOSPELS.  263 

done.'  It  is  all  personal  to  man,  a  pure  act  of  volition  on  his  part : 
intact  and  in  a  word — man's  faith  in  himself.  What  Jesus  ur^-ed 
them  to  aim  at  and  cultivate  was  ])recisely  the  reverse  of  that. 
Instead  of  sayino-,  Have  faith  in  yourselves,  he  says  :  '  Have  faith  in 
God,'  which  "Youuo-  renders  '  Ilave  God's  faith,'  in  opposition  to 
man's  faith,  a  faith'submissive  to  the  divine  will  and  satisfied  to  rest 
upon  the  divine  working.  This  unwonted,  strange  act  of  Jesus 
carried  and  proclaimed  its  own  moral  ;  it  was  as  though  he  said  to 
them.  You  see  what  mischief  I  am  able  to  do.  You  will  be  able  to 
do  the  same.  I  would  have  you  fully  conscious  of  that  power,  and 
draw  from  it  a  lesson,  not  of  self-conhdence  and  self-will,  but  of  sub- 
missiveness  and  prayer.  Let  your  faith  work  in  that  direction  only. 
If  you  can  do  mischief,  God  can  do  all  things  ;  be  persuaded  that  he 
doeth  all  things  well,  and  strong  in  that  faith,  l)e  passive,  and  make 
your  requests  known  unto  him.  'Therefore  I  say  unto  you,  All  n  Mark 24 
things  whatsoe\er  ye  pray  and  ask  for,  believe  that  ye  ha^•e  received 
them,  and  ye  shall  have  them.'  The  Authorised  Version  has  : 
'  Whatsoever  things  ye  desire,  when  ye  pray,'  which  stands  in  the 
two  oldest  MS8.  thus  :  '  What  things  soever  ye  ])ray  and  desire.' 
The  Revised  Version,  'whatsoever  ye  pray  and  ask  for,'  does  not 
quite  correspond  with  that,  nor  does  Dr.  Davidson's  rendering  of 
Tischendorf  as,  'whatsoever  ye  pray  for  and  ask.'  In  all  three 
versions  a  formal  petition  is  implied,  whereas  the  words  '  what  things 
soever  ye  pray  and  desire,'  may  include  both  actual  prayer  and  desire 
unspoken.  The  Authorised  Version  has,  '  believe  that  ye  receive,' 
now  altered  to  '  believe  that  ye  have  received,'  which  Alford  states  is 
the  reading  of  '  most  ancient  authorities  ; '  it  is  adopted  by  Tischen- 
dorf, although  not  noted  by  him  as  the  reading  of  either  of  the  three 
oldest  M8S.  The  sense  appears  to  be  this  :  Let  your  faith  have  refer- 
ence to  God.  Whatever  you  ask,  let  it  always  be  something  which 
has  already  been  vouchsafed  by  God,  and  which  cannot  therefore  be 
contrary  to  his  will ;  let  it  never  be  anything  which  lies  outside  the 
scope  of  his  gifts,  or  is  opposed  to  his  providential  arrangements,  as 
to  blight  a  tree  or  overturn  a  mountain.  Matthew's  account  is  con- 
densed. He  simply  records  the  saying  thus  :  '  And  all  things,  what-  21  Mat.  -yi 
soever  ye  shall  ask  in  prayer,  believing,  ye  shall  receive.'  80  much 
of  the  discourses  of  Jesus  as  those  who  first  reported  them  were  able 
to  record,  has  been  handed  down  to  us.  In  this  instance  Matthew's 
narrative  is  imperfect.  Even  when  the  snyings  of  Jesus  are  noted, 
however  correctly  and  fully,  it  does  not  follow  that  the  evangelists 
always  grasped  their  meaning.  To  elucidate  that,  to  get,  as  it  were, 
behind  the  mind  of  Jesus,  it  is  necessary  to  compare  the  records  and 
exercise  a  careful  and  independent  judgment.  ^lark  has  here 
brought  out  in  the  discourse  of  Jesus,  a  connecting  link,  '  Therefore 
I  say  unto  you,'  which  Matthew  seems  to  have  missed.  Jesus  brings 
into  close  connection  two  things  which  we  are  a])t  to  view  apart : 
the  power  of  man,  and  the  power  of  prayer.  He  argues  :  because 
yon  are  able  of  yourselves  to  exercise  unbounded  supremacy  over 
nature,  therefore  be  sure  that  whatever  you  confidently  ask  or  wish, 
you  will  receive  :  therefore  ask  and  wish  nothing  which  you  ought 
not.  Jesus  willed  the  destruction  of  the  fig  tree  :  he  brought  to 
bear  upon  it,  we  know  not  how,  some  mysterious  power,  we  know  not 
what,  and  his  desire  was  accomplished.     If  a  man  wills  to  overturn 


264  THE    KING    AND    THE   KINGDOM:  [part  ii. 

a  monntaiu,  it  is  because  he  kno'ws  that  the  act  lies  within  the 
compass  of  his  power  ;  if  not,  his  professed  will  would  be  an  impos- 
ture upon  himself.  Addressing:  his  disciples  generally,  not  in- 
dividually, Jesus  added  that  if  they  desired  anything,  they  must 
believe  that  it  was  a  thing  granted  them  to  have,  and  their  wish 
would  l>e  fulfilled.  The  answer  to  prayer,  '  uttered  or  unexpressed,' 
is  through  human  instrumentality.  We  pray  for  daily  bread.  There 
is  no  need  for  the  formal  utterance  of  the  petition,  except  that  it  is 
well  for  us  to  look  up  to  God,  and  when  we  do  so  to  recognise  the 
fact  that  the  supply  of  our  necessities  is  in  harmony  with  and 
dependent  upon  his  will.  The  life  of  every  creature  is  in  itself  a 
prayer  for  the  nourishment  needed  for  its  preservation. 

i!j4  r.sa.  27  'These  wait  all  upon  thee. 

That  thou  mayest  give  them  their  meat  in  due  season.' 
But  the  skies  do  not  rain  down  upon  man  unground  corn  or  flour  or 
wheat :  he  must  sow,  reap,  grind,  and  prepare  the  food;  not  each  indivi- 
dual for  himself,  but  some  for  all  ;  the  community  as  a  whole  thus  bring- 
ing to  pass  the  universal  prayer,  '  Give  us  this  day  our  daily  bread.'  It 
is  so  Avith  everything  we  need,  pray  for  and  desire  :  all  things 
vouchsafed  to  mankind  must  come  to  us  through  men,  in  connection 
with  that  power  of  self-help  and  mastery  over  the  material  world  with 
w^hich  it  has  pleased  God  to  endow  us.  '  Thei-efore  I  say  unto  you, 
All  things  whatsoever  ye  pray  and  ask  for,  believe  that  ye  have 
received  them,  and  ye  shall  have  them.'  That  is  the  law  of  God's 
giving  and  of  man's  asking  and  receiving. 

And  the  law  of  forgiveness  runs  parallel  therewith.     Jesus  touched 

11  Mark 25  upou  that  also.  'And  Avhensoever  ye  stand  praying,  forgive,  if  ye 
have   aught   against  any  one  ;    that  your  Father  also  Avhich  is  in 

■2  Maik  0, 7  hcaveu  may  forgive  you  youi-  trespasses.'  The  Jewish  doctors  held 
that  none  but  God  could  forgive  sins,  and  that  it  was  rank  blasphemy 
for  men  to  profess  to  do  so.  Jesus  taught,  on  the  contrary,  that  the 
forgiveness  of  sins  was  the  privilege  of  humanity,  and  that  the  pre- 
rogative of  divine  forgiveness  would  not,  could  not,  be  exercised 
independently  thereof.     Not  only  did  he  class  them  together,  but  he 

0 Mat.  14,  ij  declared  plainly  that  they  must  act  in  conjunction.  'For  if  ye 
forgive  men  their  trespasses,  your  heavenly  Father  will  also  forgive 
you.  But  if  ye  forgive  not  men  their  trespasses,  neither  will  your 
Father  forgive  your  trespasses.'     The  disciples  of  Jesus  are  bound  to 

11  Luke 4  pi'fiy  in  these  terms  :  ' Forgive  us  our  sins  ;  for  Ave  oursehes  also 
forgive  every  one  that  is  indebted  to  us.'  Every  law  of  God  is  for 
man's  benefit,  and  cA'ery  infraction  of  his  law  a  sin  against  humanity. 
So  long  as  man  continues  to  call  man  to  account  for  Avrongs  com- 
mitted, forgiveness  is  an  impossibility.  To  suppose  that  God  forgives 
when  man  does  not,  or  that  man  can  forgive  when  God  does  not,  is  to 
take  away  reality  from  forgiveness,  making  it  not  a  fact,  but  a  form 
of  words,  a  mere  sentiment  or  emotion  of  the  mind.  Jesus  did  not 
take  that  surface  vieAv  of  the  question.  His  teaching  Avent  deeper  far, 
down  to  the  very  root  of  the  matter.  He  saAV,  and  tried  to  make  his 
disciples  see,  that  God's  forgiveness  Avas  contingent  upon  man's,  the 
latter  being  the  antecedent  and  earnest,  if  not  the  form  and  embodi- 
ment of  the  former.  This  doctrine  is  too  important  to  be  passed 
Avithout  a  thorough  inA'estigation  of  the  Scriptural  meaning  of  the 
word  forcfiveness."    According  to   Cruden's  Concordance   the  Avords 


PART  11.]         A    STUDY    OF    THE    FOUR    GOSFELS.  205 

*  forgive,  forgiven,  forgiveth,  forgiveness,  forgivenesses,'  occur  in  the 
Old  Testament  44  times.     Three  of  those  i)assages  relate  to  human 
forgiveness,  and  41  to  divine  forgiveness,  and  in  every  instance  the 
actual  remission  of  a  punishment  is  connected  with  the  word.     Only 
with  respect  to  two  passages  could  there  be  a  moment's  hesitation  in 
arriving  at  that  conclusion:  the  first  relates  to  the  forgiveness  of  aaoxum. 
woman's  vow,  and  the  context  there  (verse  15),  declares  that  the 
husband  'shall  bear  her  iniquity  ; '  the  second  is  :  'Thou,  Lord,  art  so Ps. 5 
good  and  ready  to  forgive,'  and  there  the  context  alludes  to  a  prayer 
for  help  in  a  day  of  trouble.     Some  of  the  passages  in  Leviticus  and 
Numbers  relate  to  offerings,  ending  with  the  words,  '  they  sliall  be 
forgiven  .  .  he  shall  be  forgiven  : '  to  such  instances  the  statement 
applies,   that  under  the  law    '  every  transgression  and   disobedience  2  Heb. -i 
received  a  just  recompense  of  reward.'     In  the  Gospels  forgiveness  is 
alluded  to  ;>2  times.     The  passages  may  be  classified  as  follows  : 

(a)  By  the  Son  of  man,  12  times  ;  (b)  divine,  conditional  on 
human,  8  times  ;  (c)  of  a  brother,  'A  times  ;  (d)  of  a  sinful  woman, 
twice  ;  (e)  of  all  sins  except  blasphemy  agaiust  the  Holy  Spirit,  5 
times  ;  (f)  Father,  forgive  them,  once;  (g)  it  should  be  forgiven  them,  4  Mark  i 
once.  There  is  nothing  in  these  passages  inconsistent  with  the  previous 
conclusion  that  forgiveness  signifies  the  remission  of  a  punishment,  an 
actual  deliverance  from  a  condition  brought  about  by  wrong  conduct. 

In  the  Acts  and  Epistles  forgiveness  is  alluded  to  10  times.  The 
passages  may  be  classified  as  follows  :  (a)  Of  offences,  sins,  trespasses, 
and  avoidance  of  punishment,  12  limes  ;  (b)  mutual,  3  times  ;  (c) 
'Forgive  me  this  wrong,' once.  There  is  still  nothing  to  alter  the 
previous  conchision.  The  idea  of  absolution  or  forgiveness  ajiart  from 
an  actual,  evident  remission  of  punishment,  has  no  foundation  in 
Scripture.  If  the  penalty  due  to  an  offence  is  exacted  by  man,  it 
cannot  truly  be  declared  forgiven  by  God  :  'Forgive  .  .  ihat  your 
Fatlier  also  which  is  in  heaven  may  forgive  : '  that  was  the  doctrine 
of  Jesus,  the  aspect  of  divine  in  conjunction  with  human  forgiveness 
which  he  repeatedly  and  earnestly  impressed  upon  his  disciples.  Lee 
us  honestly  and  boldly  face  the  truth  in  this  matter.  Take  the  case 
of  a  thief  or  a  murderer,  the  one  condemned  to  penal  servitude,  the 
other  to  death.  Unless  the  sentence  be  revoked  it  would  be  absurd 
to  say  that  either  of  the  criminals  was  forgiven  :  they  are  left  to  bear 
the  punishment  of  their  iniquity,  and  death  to  the  manslayer  was 
ordained  by  God  himself.  The  accusers,  the  witnesses,  the  jury,  the 
judge,  the  jailer,  ihe  executioner,  all  combine  to  punish  the  trans- 
gression, not  to  forgive  it.  Suppose  Jesus  were  to  revisij.the  world, 
and  were  to  say.  Forgive  those  men.  That  could  have  but  one 
meaning  :  remit  the  penalty.  Yet  that  would  be  precisely  what  he 
had  said  before.  That  earnest  seeker  after  truth.  Count  Leon 
Tolstoi,  has  grappled  with  this  difficult  question  among  others.  His 
reasonings,  fearless,  unsophisticated,  luminous,  are  well  worth  our 
pondering.  He  says  :*  '  I  was  drawn  away  from  the  Church  by 
various  singularities  in  its  dogmas  ;  by  its  approval  of  persecution, 
capital  punishment,  war  :  and  also  by  its  intolerance  of  all  other  forms 
of  worship  than  its  own  ;  but  my  faith  in  the  teaching  of  the  Church 
was  shaken  still  more  by  its  indifference  to  what  seemed  to  me  the 

*  "  Wliat  I  Believe,"  pp.  6—25. 


266  THE    KING    AND    THE    KINGDOM:  [part  ii. 

very  basis  of  the  teaching  of  Christ,  and  by  its  evident  partiality  for 
what  I  could  not  consider  an  essential  part  of  that  doctrine  ...  I 
turned  away  from  the  Church.  For  the  precepts  which  were  given 
me  by  the  Church  concerning  belief  in  dogmas,  observance  of  the 
sacraments,  fast-days,  prayers,  I  did  not  care  ;  and  precepts  really 
founded  on  the  teachings  of  Christ  were  wanting  .  .  .  What  perplexed 
me  most  of  all  was,  that  all  the  evil  things  that  men  do,  such  as  con- 
demning private  individuals,  whole  nations,  or  other  rehgions  ;  and 
the  inevitable  results  of  these  condemnations — executions  and  wars — 
were  justified  by  the  Church.  I  saw  that  the  doctrine  of  Christ, 
which  teaches  us  humility,  tolerance,  forgiveness,  self-denial,  and 
love,  was  extolled  by  the  Church,  but  that  at  the  same  time  she 
sanctioned  what  was  incompatible  with  such  teachings  ...  It  was 
only  after  losing  all  faith  in  the  explanations  of  learned  theology  and 
criticism,  and  after  laying  them  all  aside,  in  obedience  to  the  words  of 
Christ  (Mark  x.  15),  that  I  began  to  understand  what  had  till  then 
seemed  incomprehensible  to  me.  It  was  not  by  deep  thought  only,  or 
by  skilfully  comparing  or  commenting  on  the  texts  of  the  Gospel, 
that  I  came  to  understand  the  doctrine.  On  the  contrary,  all  grew 
clear  to  me  for  the  very  reason  that  I  had  ceased  to  rest  on  mere 
interpretations.  The  text  that  gave  me  the  key  to  the  truth  was  the 
thirty-ninth  verse  of  the  fifth  chapter  of  St.  Matthew  :  "  Ye  have 
heard  that  it  hath  been  said.  An  eye  for  an  eye,  and  a  tooth  for 
a  tooth.  But  I  say  tmto  you,  that  ye  resist  not  evil.'"  The 
simple  meaning  of  these  words  suddenly  flashed  full  upon 
me ;  1  accepted  the  fact  that  Christ  meant  exactly  what  He 
said;  and  then,  though  I  had  found  nothing  new,  all  that  had 
hitherto  obscured  the  truth  cleared  away,  and  the  truth  itself  arose 
before  me  in  all  its  solemn  importance  .  .  .  Now  I  understood  that 
the  whole  force  of  the  teaching  lay  in  the  words,  "  resist  not  evil,"  and 
that  all  the  context  was  but  an  application  of  that  great  precept.  I 
saw"  that  Christ  does  not  require  us  to  turn  the  other  cheek,  and  to 
give  away  our  cloak,  in  order  to  make  us  suffer  ;  but  He  teaches  us 
not  to  resist  evil,  and  warns  us  that  so  doing  may  involve  personal 
suffering  .  .  .  Christ  meant  to  say,  "Whatever  men  may  do  to  you, 
bear,  suffer,  submit ;  but  never  resist  evil."  What  could  be  clearer, 
more  intelligible,  and  more  indubitable  than  this  ?  As  soon  as  I 
understood  the  exact  meaning  of  these  simple  words,  all  that  had 
appeared  confused  to  me  in  the  doctrine  of  Christ  grew  intelligible  ; . 
Avhat  had  seemed  contradictory  now  became  consistent,  and  what  I 
had  deemed  superfluous  became  indispensable.  All  united  in  one 
whole,  one  part  fitting  into  and  supporting  the  other,  like  the  pieces 
of  a  broken  statue  put  together  again  in  their  proper  places.  'J'liis 
doctrine  of  "  non-resistance  "  is  commended  again  and  again  in  the 
Gospels.  In  the  "  Sermon  on  the  Mount "  Christ  represents  his 
followers — i.e.,  those  who  fohow  this  law  of  non-resistance — as  liable 
to  be  persecuted,  stoned,  and  reduced  to  beggary.  Elsewhere  He  tells 
us  that  the  disciple  Avho  does  not  take  up  His  cross,  who  is  not  willing 
to  renounce  all,  cannot  be  His  follower,  and  He  thus  describes  the  man 
who  is  ready  to  bear  the  consequences  that  may  result  from  the 
practice  of  the  doctrine  of  non-resistance.  Christ  says  to  His  dis- 
ciples :  "  Be  poor,  be  ready  to  bear  persecution,  suffering,  and  even 
death,  without  resisting  evil."     He  prepared  for  suffering  and  death 


PART  II.]         A    .STUDY    OF    THE    FOUR    GOSPELS.  207 

Himself  without  resistinu' evil  ;  reproved  Peter  avIio  2,Tieved  over  ITiin 
because  He  proposed  thus  to  yield  ;  and  he  died,  forbidding  others  to 
resist  evil,  remaining  true  to  His  own  doctrine  in  His  own  example. 
All  His  first  discijiles  obeyed  the  same  law  of  non-resistance  of  evil  ; 
and  passed  their  lives  in  disability  and  persecution.     We  may  bring- 
forward  as  an  objection,  the  difficulty  of  always  obeying  such  a  law  ; 
we  may  even  say,  as  multitudes  do,  that  it  is  a  foolish  doctrine,  that 
Christ  was  a  dreamer,  an  idealist,  who  gave  precepts  which  it  is 
impossible  to  follow.     But,  whatever  our  objections  may  be,  we  can- 
not deny  that  Christ  expresses  His  meaning  most  clearly  and  dis- 
tinctly ;  and  His  meaning  is,  that  man  must  not  resist  ovil ;  he  who 
fully  accepts  His  teaching  cannot  resist  evil  ...  If  a  man  were  to 
set  all  the  faculties  of  his  mind  to  the  anindling  of  a  given  law,  wdiat 
more  forcible  argument  could  he  use  for  its  suppression  than  that  it 
was  an  impracticable  law,  and  that  the  legislator's  own  opinion  of  it 
was,  that  it  could  not  be  kept  without  superiuitural  aid  ?     And  yet 
this  was  exactly  what  I  had  thought  about  the  commandment  "not  to 
resist  evil."     I  tried  to  remember  when  and  how  the  strange  idea  had 
first  come  into  my  mind,  that  the  doctrine  of  Christ  was  divine  in 
authority,  but  impossible  in  practice.     On  reviewing  my  past  life,  I 
discovered  that  this  idea  had  never  been  transmitted  to  me  in  all  its 
nakedness,  for  then  it  would  have  repelled  me  ;  but  that  I  had  imper- 
ceptibly imbibed  it  from  my  earliest  childhood,  and  that  the  associa- 
tions of  my  life  had  confirmed  the  strange  error.     I  was  taught  from 
my  childhood  that  Christ  is  God,  and  that  His  teaching  is  divine  and 
authoritative  ;  while,  on  the  other  hand,  I  was  also  told  to  respect 
those  institutions  which,  by  means  of  violence,  secured  my  safety  from 
evil  ;  I  was  taught  to  honour  those  institutions  as  being  sacred.     I 
was  taught  to  resist  evil  ;  aud  it  was  instilled  into  me  that  it  was 
humiliating  and  dishonourable  to  submit  to  evil,  and  to  suffer  from 
it ;  and  that  it  was  praiseworthy  to  resist  evil.     I  was  taught  to  con- 
demn and  to  execute.     I  was  taught  to  make  war,  i.e.,  to  resist  evil 
by  murder.     The   army,  a   member  of  which  I  was,  was  called   a 
"  Christ-loving  "  army,  and  its  mission  was  consecrated  by  the  Church. 
I  was  taught  to  resist  an  offender  by  violence  ;  to  avenge  a  private 
insult,  or  one  against  my  native  laud,  by  violence.     All  this  was  never 
regarded  as  wrong,  but,  on  the  contrary,  I  was  told  that  it  was  per- 
fectly  right,   and   in    nowise    contrary   to    Christ's    doctrine.     All 
sun'ounding  interests,  such  as  the  peace  aud  safety  of  myself  and 
family,  and  of  my  property,  were  based  on  the  law^  that  was  rejected 
by  Christ — on  the  law  of   "  a   tooth   for  a    tooth."     Ecclesiastical 
teachers  told  me  that  the  doctrine  of  Christ  was  divine,  but  that  its 
observance  was  impossible  on  account  of  the  weakness   of  human 
nature  ;  and  that  the  grace  of  God  alone  could  enable  us  to  keep  this 
law.     Secular  teachers  told  me,  and  the  whole  order  of  life  proved, 
that  the  teaching  of  Christ  was  impracticable  and  ideal,  and  that  we 
must,  in  fact,  live  contrary  to  His  doctrine.     Such  a  notion  of  the 
practical  impossibility  of  fohowing  the  divine  doctrine  was  imbibed 
by  me  gradually  and  almost  imperceptibly.     I  was  so  accustomed  to 
it,  it  coincided  so  well  with  all  my  animal  feehngs,  that  I  had  never 
observed  the  contradiction  in  which  I  lived.     I  did  not  see  that  it  was 
impossible   to  admit   the   Godhead  of  Christ — the   basis  of  whose 
teaching    is    non-resistance   of    evil — aud,   at   the    same   time,    to 


268  THE    KING    ANT)    THE   KINGBOIT:  [part  ii. 

work  cons,ciously  and  calmly  for  the  institntions  of  property,  courts  of 
law,  kiTigdoms,  the  army,  and  so  on.  It  could  not  be  consistent  for 
us  to  regulate  our  lives  contrary  to  the  doctrine  of  Christ,  and  then 
pray  to  the  same  Christ  that  we  might  be  enabled  to  keep  His  com- 
mandments— to  "  forgive,"  and  not  to  "resist  evil."  .  .  .  1\\  icordl 
acknowledged  the  teaching  of  Christ  as  sacred  ;  but  I  did  not  carry 
out  that  teaching  in  deed,  for  I  admitted,  and  respected,  the  un- 
christian iustitutions  which  surrounded  me  ...  To  affirm  that  the 
Christian  doctrine  refers  only  to  personal  salvation,  and  has  no  bear- 
ing upon  state  affairs,  is  a  great  error.  To  say  so,  is  but  to  assert  an 
audacious,  groundless,  most  evident  untruth,  which  a  moment's  serious 
reflection  suffices  to  destroy.  Well,  say  I  to  myself,  I  will  not  resist 
evil  ;  as  a  private  man,  I  will  let  myself  be  smitten  ;  but  what  am  I 
to  do  if  an  enemy  invade  my  native  land,  or  other  nations  oppress  it  ? 
I  am  called  upon  to  take  part  in  a  struggle  against  evil — to  go  and 
kill.  The  question  immediately  arises  :  "Which  will  be  serving  God, 
and  which  will  be  serving  "  toga "  (vain  things)  ?  To  go,  or  not  to 
go  ?  Suppose  I  am  a  peasant  ;  I  am  chosen  as  the  senior  member  of 
ray  village,  as  judge,  as  juryman.  I  am  bound  to  take  an  oath,  to 
judge,  to  punish.  Fellow-creature,  what  am  I  to  do  ?  I  have  again 
to  choose  between  the  law  of  God  and  the  law  of  man.  Or  let  us  say, 
I  am  a  monk,  and  live  in  a  monastery  ;  the  neighbouring  peasants 
have  taken  possession  of  the  hay  we  had  mown  for  our  own  use.  I 
am  sent  to  take  part  in  a  struggle  against  evil — to  prosecute  these 
men.  I  have  again  to  choose  betw^een  the  laws  of  God  and  the  laws 
of  man,  None  of  us  can  evade  the  demand  for  such  a  decision.  To 
say  nothing  of  the  class  of  society  which  I  belong  to — military  men, 
judges,  administrators,  whose  whole  lives  are  passed  in  resisting  evil 
— there  is  not  a  single  private  individual,  be  he  ever  so  insignificant, 
who  has  not  to  choose  between  serving  God  by  fulfilling  His  com- 
mandments, or  serving  the  "  toga  "  in  the  Government  institutions  of 
his  country.  Our  private  lives  are  interwoven  with  the  organization 
of  the  State,  and  the  latter  requires  unchristian  duties  of  us,  contrary 
to  the  commandment  of  Christ.  At  the  present  time,  the  military 
service,  which  is  obligatory  on  all,  and  the  participation  of  each,  as 
jurymen,  in  the  courts  of  law,  place  the  dilemma  with  striking  clear- 
ness before  all.  Each  man  is  called  upon  to  take  up  an  instrument  of 
murder — a  gun,  a  sword — even  if  he  do  not  kill  a  fellow  creature  ; 
he  loads  the  gun  and  sharpens  the  sword,  i.e.,  he  is  ready  to  commit 
murder.  Each  citizen  is  called  upon  to  enter  the  courts  of  law,  to 
take  part  in  judging  and  punishing  his  fellow  creature  ;  i.e.,  each 
must  renounce  the  doctrine  of  Christ  which  teaches  us  not  to  resist 
evil.  .  .  Christ  says  :  "  Resist  not  evil."  The  sole  object  of  courts 
of  law  is — to  resist  evil.  Christ  enjoins  us  to  return  good  for  evil. 
Courts  of  law  return  evil  for  evil.  Christ  says  :  "Make  no  distinction 
between  the  just  and  the  unjust."  Courts  of  law  do  nothing  else, 
Christ  says  :  "  Forgive  all ;  forgive  not  once,  not  seven  times,  forgive 
without  end.  Love  your  enemies.  Do  good  to  them  that  hate  you." 
Courts  of  law  do  not  forgive,  but  they  punish  ;  they  do  not  do  good, 
but  evil,  to  those  whom  they  call  the  enemies  of  society." 

The  world  and  the  Church,  if  they  will  but  hearken,  are  in- 
debted to  Count  Leon  Tolstoi  for  his  uncompromising  logic. 
However  startling  and  unconventional  this  disclosure  of  the  naked 


PART  II.]         A    STUDY    OF   TILE    FOUll    (U)SPELS.  209 

trutli.  it  is  well  for  us  to  recognise'  the  true  form  of  Christianity, 
undraped  by  the  garments  woven  by  human  hands  after  the  fashion 
of  the  world.  Like  Luther,  Tolstoi  is  bold  enough  to  think  and  act 
for  himself,  and  his  voice  and  example  are  a  trumpet  call  to  the 
sluml)eriMg  churches.  Christ's  doctrine  is  clear  and  incontrovertible. 
The  maxims  of  worldly  prudence  by  which  it  has  been  obscured,  and 
the  (pialiticationsand  exceptions  devised  by  men,  must  needs  be  swept 
away.  Tiiat  being  done,  the  only  (piestion  is  as  to  the  limitations 
laid  down  by  Christ  himself.  Did  he  impose  his  teachings 
upon  all  men,  and  call  upon  all  to  follow  them  ?  Assuredly  he  did 
not.  That  fact  has  been  lost  sight  of  by  Tolstoi.  What  Jesus 
s])akc,  he  spake  to  his  disciples,  and  he  repelled  from  discipleship  all 
Avho  were  not  prepared  to  adopt  his  teaching,  with  all  the  suffering, 
self-denial,  and  self-sacrifice  it  entailed.  Jesus  drew  a  broad  line  of 
demarcation  between  his  disciples  and  mankind  in  general.  '  They  irjcim  n; 
are  not  of  the  world,  even  as  I  am  not  of  the  world.'  They  were 
separated  from  other  men,  called  to  live  an  unworldly  life.  There 
are  precepts  of  universal  obligation,  but  this  is  not  one  of  them.  God 
'  commandeth  men  that  they  should  all  everywhere  repent:'  not  ir  Arts  af 
that  they  should  all  become  disciples.  'God  our  Saviour;  who  21.  Tim.  4 
A\illeth  that  all  men  should  be  saved,  and  come  to  the  knowledge  of 
the  truth  : '  we  must  not  presume  to  add  :  and  profess  themselves 
disciples  of  Jesus.  The  preaching  of  Jesus  to  men  in  general  is  thus 
summarised  :  '  Repent  ye,  and  believe  the  gospel ; '  and  his  disciples  1  Mmk  1.-. 
'  went  out,  and  preached  that  men  should  repent.'  Not  a  word  did  0  Mark  1-2 
Jesus  say  to  the  multitudes  to  this  effect  :  'Ye  are  the  salt  of  the 
earth  ...  Ye  are  the  light  of  the  world  : '  such  teaching,  although 
in  public,  is  addressed  to  his  disciples,  to  whom  he  could  say  also  : 
'  Blessed  are  ye  when  men  shall  reproach  you,  and  persecute  you,  and  ^  Mat.  11 
say  all  manner  of  evil  against  you  falsely,  for  my  sake.'  Jt  excited 
the  astonishment  of  the  disciples  that  Jesus  always  taught  the  multi- 
tudes in  parabolic  form  :  '  Without  a  parable  spake  he  nothing  unto  13  Jiat.  34 
them.'  And  he  explained  that  they  were  neither  disposed  nor  able  to 
receive  from  him  any  deeper  teaching  :  '  Unto  you  it  is  given  to  know  s  Luke  10 
the  mysteries  of  the  kingdom  of  God  :  but  to  the  rest  in  parables  ; 
that  seeing  they  may  not  see,  and  hearing  they  may  not  under- 
stand.' There  is  no  foundation  for  the  idea  that  Jesus  expected  or 
desired  that  all  men  should  follow  the  precepts  given  to  his  disciples. 
On  one  occasion  Peter  asked  him:  '  8peakest  thou  this  parable  i^L"ke  41 
unto  us,  or  even  unto  all .' '  That  question  alone  is  sufficient  proof 
that  the  disciples  did  not  regard  every  doctrine  of  Jesus  as  of 
universal  application.  Such  an  assumption,  however  general,  is  as 
absurd  as  it  Avould  be  to  imagine  the  mysteries  and  duties  of  Free- 
masonry to  be  incumbent  upon  those  who  have  nev^er  joined  that 
fraternity.  Jesus  enlisted  his  disciples  for  no  light  enterprise.  He 
had  come  to  establish  the  rule  of  heaven  upon  earth,  the  kingdom  of 
God  among  mankind.  That  involved  the  annulment  of  ancient  and 
divinely-authorised  laws,  and  the  substitution  of  higher  principles  of 
action.  It  was  a  new  departure  ;  a  fresh  step  onward  in  the  progress 
of  humanity.  It  was  decreed,  moreover,  that  Jesus  himself  must  be 
the  first  martyr  in  his  own  cause ;  and  it  is  a  sublime  fact,  of  vast 
significance,  that  a  conference  was  held  between  himself,  Moses  and 
Elijah,  on  the  mountain-top,  wherein  was  discussed  the  subject  of 


270  THE    KING    AND    THE    KINGDOM:  [part  ii. 

0  Luke  31  '  his  decease  which  he  was  about  to  accomphsh  at  Jerusalem.'  The 
first  Jewish  lawgiver  approved  and  directed  the  course  adopted  by 
Jesus,  sauctiouing  and  welcoming  his  method  of  enlarging  and  alter- 
ing the  former  code,  Moses  himself  revisiting  the  earth,  acknowledg- 

r.  Mat.  3s,  30  ing  Jesus,  and  thereby  tacitly  endorsing  his  command  :  '  Ye  have 
heard  that  it  was  said,  An  eye  for  an  eye,  and  a  tooth  for  a  tooth  : 
but  I  say  unto  you,  Eesist  not  him  that  is  evil.'  That  was  but  one 
of  many  precepts,  all  equally  startling,  connected  therewith.  The 
disciples  were  iorbidden  to  take  an  oath,  to  go  to  law,  to  resent  an 
outrage,  to  accumulate  property,  to  perform  the  functions  of  a  judge. 
Tolstoi  writes  :  '  Now  I  understand  what  Christ  meant  when  he  said, 
"  Ye  have  heard  that  it  hath  been  said.  An  eye  for  an  eye,  and  a  tooth 
for  a  tooth.  And  I  say  unto  j'ou,  that  ye  resist  not  evil."  Christ 
means,  "You  have  been  taught  to  consider  it  right  and  rational  to  pro- 
tect yourselves  against  evil  by  violence,  to  pluck  out  an  eye  for  an  eye, 
to  institute  courts  of  law  for  the  punishment  of  criminals,  to  have  a 
])olice,  an  army,  to  defend  you  against  the  attacks  of  an  enemy  ;  but 
I  say  to  you,  do  no  violence  to  any  man,  take  no  part  in  violence, 
never  do  evil  to  any  man,  not  even  to  those  Avhom  ye  call  your 
enemies."  I  now  understood  that,  in  this  doctrine  of  noa-resistance, 
Christ  not  only  tells  us  what  the  natural  result  of  following  this 
doctrine  will  be,  but  by  placing  the  same  doctrine  in  opposition 
to  the  Mosaic  law,  the  Roman  law,  and  the  various  codes  of 
the  present  time,  He  clearly  shows  that  it  ought  to  be  the  basis 
of  our  social  existence,  and  should  deliver  us  from  the  evil  we 
have  brought  on  ourselves.  He  says :  "  You  think  to  amend 
evil  by  your  laws,  but  they  only  aggravate  it.  There  is  one  way  by 
which  you  can  put  a  stop  to  evil ;  it  is  by  indiscriminately  returning 
good  for  evil.  You  have  tried  the  other  law  for  thousands  of  years  ; 
now  try  Mine,  which  is  the  very  reverse." '  In  the  early  days  of 
Christianity  the  disciples  of  Jesus  acted  up  to  his  precepts.  Justin 
Martyr  (a.d.  140)  says  :  '  We  who  were  once  slayers  of  one  another, 
do  not  now  fight  against  our  enemies.'  Irenfeus,  bishop  of  Lyons 
(A.D.  107)  states  that  the  followers  of  Jesus  had  disused  their  weapons 
of  war,  and  no  longer  knew  how  to  fight.  TertuUian,  later  (a.d.  200), 
alludes  to  Christians  who  were  engaged  in  military  pursuits  ;  but  on 
another  occasion  informs  us  that  many  soldiers  quitted  those  pursuits 
in  consequence  of  their  conversion  to  Christianity,  and  repeatedly 
expresses  his  opinion  that  any  participation  in  Avar  is  unlawful  for 
believers  in  Jesus,  not  only  because  of  the  idolatrous  practices  of  the 
Roman  armies,  but  because  Christ  has  forbidden  the  use  of  the  sword 
and  the  revenge  of  injuries.  Origen  (a.d.  230)  in  his  work  against 
Oelsus  says  :  '  We  have  become  for  the  sake  of  Jesus  the  children  of 
jDcace.  By  our  prayers  we  fight  for  our  king  abundantly,  but  take 
no  part  in  his  wars,  even  though  he  urge  us,'  Is  it  wonderful  that 
the  law  which  regulates  God's  kingdom  in  heaven,  should  seem  out  of 
place  and  chimerical  when  introduced  into  man's  kingdom,  or  rather 
the  devil's  kingdom,  upon  earth  ?  The  aim  of  Jesus  was  to  introduce 
into  human  society  that  heavenly-mindedness  by  which  alone  it  can 
be  purified,  regenerated,  transformed.  The  new  leaven  must  be  put 
into  the  old  lump,  there  to  grow  and  spread  until  the  whole  should 
become  leavened.  It  must  needs  be  that  the  Founder  of  the  new 
religion,  and  his  first  followers,  should  be  martyrs  in  the  cause  ;  and 


PART  II.]        A    STUDY    OF    THE    FOUR    GOSPELS.  271 

that  others  should  rise  up  afterwards,  and  carry  on  the  work  in  the 
same  way  and  spirit.  That  is  the  true  ministry  of  Christ,  the  true 
preacliing  of  the  cross.  The  need  of  the  world  cries  out  ibr  the 
constant  presence  and  example  of  a  hody  of  men  prepared  to  live 
entirely  in  accordance  with  the  rule  of  life  laid  down  by  Jesus,  and  to 
suffer  ii'ladly  all  the  consequences.  That  ideal  has  been  lost  sit^'lit  of, 
and  instead  thereof  we  have  a  Clergy  claiming  the  right  of  adminis- 
tering sacraments  of  Baptism  and  Holy  Communion,  men  who 
expound  the  Scriptures  to  us,  or  for  us,  christen  us,  indoctrinate  us, 
marry  us,  visit  us  in  sickness,  bury  us.  Did  Christ  ever  say  one  word 
about  such  a  sphere  of  duty  for  liis  followers  ?  That  is  not  his  work, 
his  method,  his  scheme  of  action.  One  Tolstoi  is  w^orth  an  army  of 
such  evangelisers.  Not  that  our  clerical  brethren  are  to  l)e  reproached 
for  the  position  they  occupy.  They  have  not  made  it  for  themselves  ; 
they  have  simply  inherited  it  ;  clergy  and  laity  alike,  we  are  all  what 
our  forefathers  have  made  us.  The  so-called  Christian  community  is 
full  of  unchristian  notions  ;  about  salvation,  war,  law,  the  rights  and 
duties  of  property.  Society  has  never  yet  been  organised  upon  the 
Christian  basis.  That  is  a  consummation  which  can  only  be  arrived 
at  gradually  ;  and  the  departure  from  the  foundation  which  was  laid 
by  Jesus  and  his  apostles  has  thrown  it  back  many  centuries.  Only 
by  reverting  to  his  plan  can  the  gospel  have  free  course,  run,  and  be 
glorified.  The  first  step  towards  success  is  to  discern  what  is  lacking. 
'.I'here  are  multitudes  willing  to  devote  themselves  to  the  cause  of 
Jesus,  and  to  do  all  that  he  commands,  if  only  his  requirements  and 
the  Avorld's  necessities  be  rightly  apprehended.  Mistakes  of  judgment 
and  of  principle  in  this  matter  are  fatal  to  the  progress  of  Christianity. 
The  doctrine  of  Jesus  must  be  disentangled  from  the  parasitic  growth 
of  human  maxims  by  which  it  has  been  covered  and  stifled.  Let  the 
professed  followers  of  Jesus  be  called  by  what  name  they  may  : 
ministers  of  Christ,  disciples,  deacons,  priests,  pastors,  bishops  ;  only 
let  it  be  understood  that  they  are  bound  to  frame  their  lives  in  exact 
accordance  with  the  pattern  of  Christ's  life  and  the  spirit  and  letter 
of  his  teachings.  Such  men  Avill  be  the  salt  of  the  earth,  the  light  of 
the  world,  seen  and  known  of  all  men,  like  a  city  set  upon  a  hill  which 
cannot  be  hid.  With  such  leaders  in  light  and  love,  the  church  will 
be  constituted  according  to  Christ's  ideal.  The  profession  of 
discipleship  must  be  purely  optional,  as  Jesus  intended  it  to  be,  and 
all  ordained  thereto  must  take  up  the  cross,  relinquish  wealth,  scorn 
ambition,  seek  the  honour  which  comes  from  God  only,  have  their 
treasure  in  heaven,  their  hearts  being  there  also,  decline  to  take  any 
oath  by  way  of  allegiance  or  otherwise,  refrain  from  judicial  pro- 
ceedings, refuse  to  fight  in  any  cause,  either  labour  for  a  bare 
subsistence  and  distribute  the  overplus,  or  be  content  to  give  their 
time  and  labour  to  the  church  in  exchange  for  food,  raiment  and 
shelter.  Such  men,  and  such  men  only,  will  be  able  to  take  up  the 
apostle's  words  :  '  Herein  is  love  made  perfect  with  us,  that  we  may  4  i.  Joim  i: 
have  boldness  in  the  day  of  judgement ;  because  as  he  is,  even  so  are 
■we  in  this  world.'  They  would  be  living  sermons,  epistles  of  Christ, 
seen  and  known  of  all  men, '  written  not  with  ink,  but  with  the  Spirit  3  ii.  Cor.  3 
of  the  living  God.'  What  is  wanted  is  a  change,  not  of  men,  but  of 
aim  and  system  :  that  instead  of  simply  hearing,  year  after  year  and 
generation  after  generation,  the  same  doctrines  inculcated,  we  should 


272  THE    KING    AND    THE    KINGDOM:  [part  ju 

have  ever  before  our  eyes  patterns  and  examples  of  men  who,  with  like 
passions  to  ourselves,  live  the  life  ordained  for  them  by  Christ,  each 
1  Col.  24  of  them  ready  to  say,  if  need  be,  with  the  apostle  Paul:  'Now  I 
rejoice  in  my  suflferings  for  your  sake,  and  fill  up  on  ray  part  that 
which  is  lackincf  of  the  afflictions  of  Christ  in  my  flesh  for  his  body's  sake, 
which  is  the  church.'  In  the  strife  for  freedom  and  for  truth,  they 
must  needs  sometimes  suffer  who  stand  foremost  ;  but  the  bitterness 
of  the  world's  persecution  is  past,  and  an  imyjlicit  adherence  to  the 
doctrine  of  non-resistance  now,  might  not  entail  the  frightful  penalties 
endured  by  martyrs  in  darker  ages.  Be  it  remembered  too,  that  the 
chief  persecutors  in  l)ygone  times  were  men  who  called  and  deemed 
themselves  Christians,  but  who,  in  that  matter  at  least,  were  as  far 
off  from  the  teaching  and  spirit  of  Christ  as  heaven  is  from  earth,  or 
from  hell.  If  the  true  doctrine  of  Jesus  had  not  been  wholly 
obliterated  from  the  miuds  of  those  who  claimed  to  be  descendants 
from  him  and  his  apostles,  it  would  have  been  impossible  for  them  ta 
lift  a  hand  against  any  man,  far  less  against  those  they  sought  to 
influence  and  convert.  AVhen  the  church  of  Christ  begins  to  adopt 
his  policy,  then  Christianity  will  begin  to  flourish  and  bear  its  proper 
fruit  of  righteousness  and  peace.  If  the  gospel  of  Jesus  does  not 
triumph,  after  all  these  centuries  of  preaching, — and  who  can  dare  to 
say  it  does  ? — it  must  be  because  some  fundamental  human  error 
mars  and  hinders  the  heaven-sent  gift.  When  that  is  recognised,  the 
question  of  amendment  will  become  practical,  and  not  much  will  be 
wanted  to  ensure  success.  The  commandments  of  Jesus  involve  self- 
denial,  but  they  are  not  grievous.  The  pecuniary  emoluments  of  most 
clergymen  are  so  small  already,  that  it  would  be  no  sacrifice  to  them 
were  they  formally  to  renounce,  in  Christ's  name,  all  hope  and  desire 
of  property.  The  great  difficulty  and  trial  in  connection  with  that, 
was  the  necessity  it  laid  upon  men  of  abstaining  from  marriage,  lest 
at  their  death  those  they  loved  should  be  left  without  provision.  But 
the  beneficent  system  of  life  assurance  would  now  obviate  that,  so 
ameliorating  the  stern  necessity  of  renouncing  for  Christ's  sake  wife 
and  children  as  well  as  money  and  lands.  Of  course,  under  the 
system  laid  down  by  Jesus,  pluralities  and  the  huge  incomes  of  our 
Bishops  must  be  abolished  :  they  are  of  the  world,  worldly,  and  befit 
not  those  who  profess  to  be  followers  of  a  heavenly  Master.  But 
there  is  room  in  the  Church  for  all,  for  men  of  wealth,  culture, 
leisure,  who  could  still  devote  themselves  to  preaching  and  other 
clerical  offices,  only  taking  second  rank  instead  of  first,  renouncing 
the  vain,  pretentious  claim  of  apostolical  succession,  in  favour  of  those 
Avho  in  deed  and  in  truth  pro^'c  themselves  imitators  of  Jesus  and  the 
apostles  by  life-long  poverty  and  self-sacrifice,  deliberately,  voluntarily 
faced  for  the  kingdom  of  heaven's  sake.  They  alone  can  claim  the 
title  of  soldiers  of  the  Cross,  and  infinitely  preferable  would  be  their 
lot  in  this  life,  whatever  persecutions  and  sufferings  they  might  be 
called  to  endure,  than  is  that  of  troops  in  a  fighting  army.  Tolstoi 
draws  the  following  graphic  contrast  between  the  soldiers  of  Christ 
and  of  the  world  :  *  '  Leaving  their  parents,  their  wives  and  children, 
they  go  in  their  buffoon  attire,  blindly  submissive  to  some  superior 
"whom  they  hardly  know  ;  cold,  hungry,  worn  out  by  a  march  above 

*  "What  I  Believe,"  p.  182. 


PART  II.]         A    SirDY    OF    THE    FOUR    GOSPELS.  273 

their  streng-tli,  they  follow  him  like  a  herd  of  oxen  to  the  slaug-hter. 
But  they  are  not  oxen,  they  arc  men  !  They  cannot  help  knowing 
that  they  are  driven  to  slaughter,  with  the  nnsolvable  question,  Why 
must  I  go  ?  and  with  despair  in  their  hearts  they  go  on,  many  dying 
off  through  cold,  hunger,  and  infectious  diseases,  till  those  that  are 
left  are  phiccd  under  bullets  and  cannon-balls,  and  ordered  to  kill  men 
whom  they  know  nothing  about.  They  kill  and  are  at  last  killed 
themselves,  and  not  one  of  those  who  kills  his  fellow-creature  knows 
why  he  does  so  .  .  .  And  no  sooner  docs  anyone  call  than  others  go 
to  the  same  dreadful  suffering  and  to  death.  And  nobody  finds  it 
hard.  Xeither  do  they  themselves  think  it  hard,  nor  do  their  fathers 
and  mothers  tiiink  so  ;  the  latter  even  advise  their  children  to  go. 
Xot  only  do  they  think  it  necessary  and  unavoidable,  but  even 
perfectly  right  and  moral.  We  might  think  the  fulfilling  of  Christ's 
doctrine  difficult  if  it  were  really  an  easy  and  pleasant  thing  to  live 
according  to  the  teaching  of  the  world.  But  it  is  much  more  difficult, 
dangerous  and  painful  to  do  so  than  it  is  to  live  up  to  the  doctrine  of 
Christ.  It  is  said  that  formerly  there  were  martyrs  for  Christianity, 
l;)ut  these  were  exceptional  cases  ;  we  reckon  about  tliree  hundred  and 
eighty  thousand  voluntary  and  involuntary  martyrs  for  Christianity  in 
the  course  of  1800  years.  JSTow  count  those  that  have  died  for  the 
teaching  of  the  world,  and  for  each  martyr  for  Christianity  you  will 
find  a  tliousand  martyrs  for  the  world's  sake,  wliose  sufferings  were  a 
hnudredfold  more  dreadful.  Thirty  millions  have  been  killed  in  war 
during  the  present  century  alone.  Those  were  all  martyrs  for  the 
world's  sake.  Had  they  but  rejected  the  teaching  of  the  world,  even 
without  following  the  doctrine  of  Christ,  they  would  have  escaped 
suffering  and  death  .  .  .  We  need  not  be  martyrs  for  Christ's  sake  ; 
that  is  noi  what  He  requires  of  us.  But  he  teaches  us  to  cease 
martyrizing  our  own  selves  for  the  sake  of  the  false  teaching  of  the 
world.  The  doctrine  of  Christ  has  a  deep  metaphysical  purport  ;  it 
has  a  purport  general  to  all  humanity  ;  the  doctrine  of  Christ  has  the 
simplest,  clearest,  most  practical  purport  for  each  of  us.  We  may 
express  this  idea  in  a  few  words.  Christ  teaches  men  not  to  act 
foohshly.  It  this  lies  the  simplest  sense  of  Christ's  doctrine,  and  it  is 
one  each  has  it  in  his  power  to  understand.'  There  is  a  mine  of 
philosophy  in  that  simple  sentence  of  Tolstoi : '  Christ  teaches  men  not 
to  act  foolishly  ; '  and  also  in  the  following  :  '  In  order  to  secure  an 
uncertain  life,  for  an  uncertain  future,  we  resolutely  ruin  our  real 
lives  in  the  actual  present.'  The  salvation  designed  by  Christ  is  the 
salvation  of  mankind  in  this  life.  Losing  sight  of  that  truth,  our 
spiritual  guides  teach  us  to  acquiesce  in  its  postponement  to  the  next. 
Not  aiming  at  Christ's  pattern-life  themselves,  they  have  left  the 
world  to  its  own  course,  and  instead  of  overcoming  it  have  been 
overcome  by  it. 

In  the  Authorised  Version  the  following  Averse  is  added  :  '  But  if  n  Mark  -26 
ye  do  not  forgive,  neither  will  your  Father  which  is  in  heaven  forgive 
your  trespasses.'     This  is  not  in  the  two  oldest  MSS.,  and  the  Revisers 
have  banished  it  to  the  margin. 

The  expression,  '  Xo  man  eat  fruit   from  thee  henceforward  for       „     u 
ever '  is  rendered  by  Dr.  Young  literally,  '  Xo  more  from  thee — for 
the   age — may    any  eat    fi'uit.'      Obviously   the   '  age  '   or    natural 
duration  of  the  tree  is  alluded  to.     In  the  same  way,  when  Jesus 


274  THE    KING    AND    THE    KINGDOM:  [pakt  ii. 

promises  men  life  '  to  the  age,'  or  '  age-during  life,'  the  meaning  is 
restricted  to  the  full  term  of  man's  natural  existence. 

On  returning  to  Jerusalem  after  spending  a  night  in  Bethany, 
Jesus  entered  the  temple.  He  found  it  already  occupied.  It  was 
transformed  for  the  time  being  into  a  market  place.  Traffic  and 
money  changing  were  going  on,  and  sellers  of  doves  were  comfortably 
seated.  Not  for  such  purposes  had  the  temple  been  built,  and  to  see 
its  sacredness  thus  set  at  naught  excited  the  indignation  of  Jesus. 
Unhesitatingly  and  alone  he  undertook  the  task  of  preventing  such 

■21  Mat.  1-2  acts  of  desecration.  '  And  Jesus  entered  into  the  temple  of  God, 
and  cast  out  all  them  that  sold  and  bought  in  the  temple,  and  over- 
threw the  tables  of  the  money-changers,  and  the  seats  of  them  that 
sold  the  doves.'  The  words  '  of  (}od  '  after  '  temple  '  are  not  in  the 
two  oldest  MSS.,  and  the  Revisers  note  that  they  are  omitted  in 

u)LTike4.j  'many  ancient  authorities.'  Luke's  account  is  very  concise  :  'And 
he  entered  into  the  temple,  and  began  to  cast  out  them  that  sold.' 
The  words  '  and  them  that  bought '  are  omitted  by  the  Revisers,  not 
being  in  the  two  oldest  MSS.  Mark's  account  shows  that  Jesus  not 
only  ejected  the  trespassers  but  held  possession,  not  even  allowing 

n  Maik  15,  those  bearing  vessels  to   pass    through  the   building.      'And  they 

^''  come  to  Jerusalem  :  and  he  entered  into  the  temple,  and  began  to 

cast  out  them  that  sold  and  them  that  bought  in  the  temple,  and 

overthrew  the  tables  of  the  money-changers,  and  the  seats  of  them 

that  sold  the  doves  ;  and  he  would  not  suffer  that  any  man  should 

10  Luki-  40  carry  a  vessel  through  the  temple.'  Luke  continues  :  '  saying  unto 
them.  It  is  written.  And  my  house  shall  be  a  house  of  prayer  :  but 
ye  have  made  it  a  den  of  robbers.'  The  conciseness  of  the  narrative 
might  lead  to  the  conclusion  that  these  words  were  addressed  to  the 
traffickers,  but  Mark  explains  that  they  formed  part  of  a  subsequent 

n  Mark  IV  discoursc  :  '  And  he  taught,  and  said  unto  them,  Is  it  not  written, 
My  house  shall  be  called  a  house  of  prayer  for  all  the  nations  ?  but 

•21  Mat  13  ye  have  made  it  a  den  of  robbers.'  Matthew  is  as  follows  :  '  And  he 
saith  unto  them,  It  is  written,  My  house  shall  be  called  a  house  of 
prayer  :  but  ye  make  it  a  den  of  robbers.'  Following  the  two  oldest 
MSS.,  the  Revisers  have  altered  'ye  have  made'  to  'ye  make,' 
rendered  by  Alford  and  Tischendorf '  ye  are  making.'     The  passage 

5c.  isa.r  in  Isaiah  stands  :  '  Mine  house  shall  be  called  an  house  of  prayer  for 
all  peoples.'     The  second  portion  appears  to  be  a  quotation  based 

7  jnr.  11  upon  the  words  of  Jeremiah  :  '  Is  this  house  which  is  called  by  my 
name,  become  a  den  of  robbers  in  your  eyes  ?  '  Having  expelled  the 
godless,  grasping  traders,  Jesus  is  expostulating  with  the  people  foi- 
permitting  such  a  scandalous  misuse  of  the  temple.  The  abuse  was 
of  long  standing,  and  needed  to  be  put  down  with  a  strong  hand. 
The  work  of  Jesus  in  the  place  was  indeed  sacred  :  he  not  only 
taught,  but  put  forth  his  marvellous  powers  of  healing.  Blind  men 
and  cripples  found  their  wa,y  to  the  temple,  and  received  the  blessing 

■21  Mai  14  of  restored  sight  and  vigour.  '  And  the  blind  and  the  lame  came  to 
him  in  the  temple  :  and  he  healed  them.' 

Very  near  the  beginning  of  John's  gospel  stands  the  following 

■2  John  13-10  record  :  '  And  the  passover  of  the  Jews  was  at  hand,  and  Jesus  went 
up  to  Jerusalem.  And  he  found  in  the  temple  those  that  sold  oxen 
and  sheep  and  doves,  and  the  changers  of  money  sitting  •  and  he 


PART  11.]         A    HTUDY    OF    THE    FOUR    GOSPELS.  276 

iriarle  a  scourge  of  cords,  and  cast  all  out  of  tlie  temple,  both  the 
sliecp  and  the  oxen ;  and  he  poured  out  the  changers'  money,  and  over- 
threw their  tables  ;  and  to  them  that  sold  the  doves  lie  said,  Take 
tliese  things  hence  ;  make  not  my  Father's  house  a  house  of 
merchandise.'  This  is  so  similar  to  the  foregoing  accounts  that, 
apart  from  any  apparent  reason  to  the  contrary,  we  shonld  assume 
the  incident  to  be  one  and  the  same.  That  idea  is  repudiated  by 
Alford.  He  says  :  '  It  is  impossible  to  suppose  that  St.  Matthew  or 
St.  John,  or  any  one  but  moderately  acquainted  with  the  events 
which  he  undertook  to  relate,  should  have  made  such  a  gross  error  in 
chronology  as  must  be  laid  to  the  charge  of  one  or  other  of  them,  if 
these  two  occurrences  wei-e  the  same.'  That  argument  would  be 
valid  enough  on  two  assumptions  :  (1)  that  it  was  always  the  inten- 
tion of  the  evangelists  to  write  chronologically  ;  (2)  that  the  manu- 
script was  bound  together  like  a  modern  book,  and  so  bound  before 
it  left  the  hands  of  its  author.  There  is  no  evidence,  no  iDrobability 
that  such  was  the  case.  The  original  records  of  what  Jesus  did  and 
said  were  most  likely  made  at  the  time,  as  opportunity  offered.  This 
applies  especially  to  John's  gospel,  which  contains  long  discourses 
of  Jesus,  the  recording  of  which  was  not  attempted  by  any  other 
e\angelist.  If  the  leaves  were  numbered  at  all,  the  numbering  would 
most  likely  not  be  consecutive  from  first  to  last  :  each  portion  might 
be  paged  separately.  In  that  case,  the  order  of  the  events  would 
<lepend  upon  the  binder  rather  than  the  ^\Titer.  The  Rev.  J.  J. 
Halcombe  claims  to  have  made  the  important  disco^"ery  that  an 
entire  section  of  Luke's  narrative  has  been  displaced  from  time 
immemorial,  and  that  the  portion  from  the  14th  verse  of  the  12th 
chapter  to  the  21st  verse  of  the  13th  chapter  should  be  inserted 
between  verses  21  and  22  of  the  8th  chapter.  The  close  agreement 
lietween  John's  account  and  that  of  the  three  other  evangelists  may 
be  taken  to  indicate  that  it  has  been  misplaced  in  the  fourth  gospel. 
Both  this  latter  portion  of  the  2nd  chapter  and  the  whole  of  the 
3rd  chapter  of  John,  relating  the  conversation  with  Nicodemus, 
probably  belonged  to  a  later  period.  It  is  not  easily  conceivable 
that  Jesus  would  have  commenced  his  career  with  such  an  action,  or 
that  he  should  have  been  visited  by  a  ruler  of  the  Pharisees  so  soon 
after  his  first  miracle  in  Cana  of  Galilee,  with  the  acknowledg- 
ment :  '  Rabbi,  we  know  that  thou  art  a  teacher  come  from  God  :  3 
for  no  man  can  do  these  signs  that  thou  doest,  except  God  be 
with  him.' 

Whether  Jesus  twice  in  his  life,  or  once  only,  took  upon,  himself  to 
purge  the  temple,  is  not  a  question  of  much  importance.  Only  John 
makes  mention  of  the  oxen  and  sheep,  and  of  the  scourge  of  cords, 
which  would  be  necessary  in  order  to  drive  them  out.  Alford 
observes  :  '  That  our  Lord  used  the  scourge  on  the  beasts  only,  not 
on  the  sellers  of  them,  is  almost  necessarily  contained  in  the  form  of 
the  sentence  here  :  which,  according  to  the  grammar  of  the  original, 
shonld  be  rendered,  "  He  drove  all  out  of  the  temple,  both  the  sheep 
and  the  oxen."  '  The  Revisers  have  adopted  that  rendering,  instead 
of  the  Authorised  Version,  '  he  drove  them  all  out  of  the  temple,  and 
the  shee]i,  and  the  oxen.'  We  may  feel  sure  that  Jesus  never  h'fted 
his  hand  against  any  man.  Luke  says  only,  he  'began  to  cast  out 
them  that  sold,'  which  seems  to  involve  physical  force,  if  not  herculean 

T  2 


276  THE    KING    AND    THE   KINGDOM:  [part  ii. 

strength.  But  tlie  other  evangelists  explain  the  method  by  which  he 
accomplished  the  object  :  when  the  sheep  and  oxen  were  driven 
away,  the  owners  must  of  course  follow  ;  when  the  bowls  of  coin 
were  overturned  together  with  the  tables,  the  money-changers  would 
be  glad  to  collect  their  money  and  escape  from  the  presence  of  Jesus  ; 
and  the  dove-sellers  were  got  rid  of,  with  the  doves,  by  throwing 
down  their  seats  and  stands,  coupled  with  the  expostulation,  '  Take 
these  things  hence.'  John  attributes  their  departure  to  the  expostula- 
tion only.  When  the  cattle-dealers  and  bankers  had  gone,  it  would 
have  been  useless  for  others  to  remain.  No  market  could  be  held,  no 
bargaining  go  on,  in  face  of  such  disturbance. 

The  disciples  of  Jesus  must  have  regarded  with  astonishment  a 
scene  so  strange  and  unexpected.  Discussing  the  matter  among 
themselves,  they  called  to  mind  a  passage  in  the  Psalms, — which 
were  probably  as  familiar  to  them  as  they  are  to  members  of  the 
Church  of  England, — a  passage  which  seemed  to  foretell  just  such  an 
■j.ii.iniiT  outburst  of  zeal  in  connection  with  the  temple.  'His  disciples 
remembered  that  it  was  written.  The  zeal  of  thine  house  shall  eat 
me  up.'  In  the  Authorised  Version  it  is,  '  hath  eaten  me  up.' 
Tischendorf  notes  that  in  the  thi-ee  oldest  MSS.  the  words  are 
'  eateth  me  up,'  and  in  his  version  the  quotation  stands,  '  Zeal  for 
"■•:'  I''*-  '•'  thine  house  consumes  me.'  In  the  Psalm  the  passage  reads  :  '  For 
the  zeal  of  thine  house  hath  eaten  me  up.' 

It  was  l)ut  natural  that  after  so  high-handed  a  proceeding  on  the 
■2  3„hu  IS  part  of  Jesus,  he  should  be  called  upon  to  justify  his  conduct.  '  The 
Jews  therefore  answered  and  said  unto  him.  What  sign  shewest  thou 
unto  us,  seeing  that  thou  doest  these  things  ? '  The  word  '  there- 
fore '  may  be  taken  to  involve  a  connection  not  only  with  the  act 
itself,  but  with  the  interpretation  ^vhich  his  disciples  were  putting 
upon  it.  Probably  theii'  opinion  agreed  with  that  which  Alford 
expresses  as  follows  :  '  This  cleansing  of  the  temple  was  in  the  direct 
course  of  His  manifestation  as  the  Messiah.'  Jesus  took  up  the 
challenge.  He  was  prepared  to  give  them  such  a  sign,  one  which 
lay  beyond  the  utmost  conceivable  range  of  merely  human  power. 

,.  I'.i  'Jesus  answered  and  said  unto  them,  Destroy  this  temple  (or, 
sanctuary),  and  in  three  days  I  will  raise  it  up.'  It  was  a  deep 
saying,  if  not  a  hard  one.  The  temple  was  for  the  worship  and  glory 
of  God.  They  who  desecrated  it  might  carry  their  irreverence  to  the 
length  of  actually  destroying  it.  In  that  event,  which  Jesus  seems 
to  speak  of  as  a  foregone  conclusion,  he  would  be  able  to  repair  the 
mischief  done  by  them  :  not  Avith  difficulty,  labour,  or  any  long- 
delay,  but  within  a  fixed  term  of  three  days.     To  them  the  assertion 

„    20      was   an  enigma,  an   inexplicable   hyperbole.     'The  Jews   therefore 
said,  Forty  and  six  years  was  this  temple  (or,  sanctuary)  in  building, 
and  wilt  thou  raise  it  up  in  three  days  ? '     But  to  us,  as  to  the . 
disciples  Avhen  they  had  become   witnesses  of   the   resurrection   of 

„  --'1  Jesus,  his  meaning  is  clear.  'But  he  spake  of  the  temple  (or, 
sanctuary)  of  his  body.'  When  the  true  sense  of  the  expression 
'raise  it  up  in  three  days,'  dawned  upon  the  disciples,  they  called  to 

„  22  mind  this  occasion  when  he  used  it.  '  When  therefore  he  was  raised 
from  the  dead,  his  disciples  remembered  that  he  spake  this.'     It  is 

„  •-'-'  added  :  '  and  they  believed  the  scripture,  and  the  word  which  Jesus 
had  said.'     Tischendorf  renders,  '  the  word  which  Jesus  spake,'  and 


i-ART  II.]         A    STUDY    OF    THE    FOUR    GOSPELS.  277 

Youiii'',  '  tlie  word  which  Jesus  said/  This  is  difl'ercut  from  'had 
said,'  which  seems  to  refer  to  soraetliinj;-  spoken  loiii;-  before. 
Tischendorf  omits  '  they '  before  *  behcved,'  tliereby  making  one 
sentence  only.  It  can  scarcely  be  contended  that  the  disciples 
'believed  the  word  which  Jesus  said,'  if  they  waited  until  the  event 
liad  proved  its  truth.  Those  who  take  tliat  view  are  in  a  difficulty 
also  with  respect  to  the  phrase  '  believed  the  scripture.'  What 
scripture  ?  All'ord  says  :  '  At  first  sight  it  appears  difficult  to  fix  on 
any  passage  in  which  it  is  directly  announced  :  but ' — here  peeps 
forth  the  conventionally-trained  intellect  of  the  theologian — '  but 
with  the  deeper  understanding  of  the  Scriptures  which  the  Holy 
Spirit  gave  the  Apostles  and  still  gives  the  Christian  Church,  such 
prophecies  as  that  in  Psalm  xvi.  are  recognized  as  belonging  to  Him 
in  whom  alone  they  are  properly  fulfilled.'  It  is  simpler  to  take  the 
meaning  thus  :  When  Jesus  was  raised  from  the  dead  they  remem- 
liered  his  saying  and  discussed  its  appropriateness  ;  and  at  the  time, 
althougii  unable  to  grasp  its  import,  they  regarded  him  as  the 
Messiah  to  whom  the  scripture  they  themselves  had  selected  applied, 
and  they  were  confident  that  the  sign  he  promised  would  surely  be  given. 

When  alluding  to  his  body  as  '  this  temple,'  Jesus  uttered  no  mere 
figure  of  speech.     The  apostle  Paul  seized  upon  the  idea,  insisted 
upon  it  as  a  reality,  and  applied  it  to  believers  generally.     '  KnoAV  ye  n  i.  c> 
not  that  ye  are  a  temple  (or,  sanctuary)  of  God,  and  that  the  Spirit 
of  God  dwelleth  in  you  ?     If  any  man  destroyeth  the  temple  (or, 
sanctuary)   of  God,   him   shall   God   destroy ;    for  the  temple  (or, 
sanctuary)  of  God  is  holy,  which  temple  ye  are.'     We  read  that  Jesus 
was  '  full  of  the  Holy  Spirit.'     AVhere  the  Spirit  of  God  dwells,  there  4  luu^ 
truly  is  His  temple.      Paul  did  not  claim  that   title  individually, 
but  for  the  entire  body  of  believers  :  '  ye  are  a  temple,'  not  '  ye  are 
temples  ; '  '  the  Spirit  of  God  dwelleth  in  you,'  collectively,  not  '  in 
each  of  you.'     '  To  each  one  is  given,'  not  the  Spirit  in  his  fulness,  ]:;i.  0 
but   a  certain  meiisure  and   'manifestation  of   the  Spirit  to  profit 
withal ; '  so  that  '  in  one  Spirit  were  we  all  baptized  into  one  body,' 
which  body  constitutes  'the  temple  of  God.'     The  apostle's  teaching- 
is  very  clear  on  this  point.     He  speaks  of  '  the  church,  which  is  his  1  ei.ii. 
body,   the  fulness  of  him  that  filleth  all  in  all;'  aud  again:  'for  1  <oi. 
his   body's   sake,   which   is   the  church.'     And   the   apostle   Peter, 
addressing  '  the  elect '  says  :  '  ye  also,  as  living  stones,  are  built  up  a  -i  \.  v^ 
spiritual  house.'     There  is  a  world  of  meaning  in  that  phrase  of  Jude, 
'  our  common  salvation.'     In  proportion  as  our  conception  of  salva-  .lude  s 
tion  becomes  individualized  and  personal,  it  falls  short  of  the  ideal  of 
Christ  and  his  apostles.     'None  of  us  liveth  to  himself,  and  none  i^  i!"i 
dietli  to  himself.' 

When  Jesus  alluded  to  his  resurrection,  it  was  in  connection  with 
an  interval  of  '  three  days.'  Surely  there  must  exist  some  reason  for 
this,  some  law  of  development  and  reorganisation,  which  requires  for 
its  working  that  particular  period  of  time.  That  is  the  case  with 
every  process  of  nature  in  respect  of  living  organisms.  Re\ivifica- 
tion,  be  it  of  a  human  soul  or  body,  or  of  both  combined,  if  it  be 
universal,  as  we  must  needs  believe,  is  not  an  exceptional,  super- 
natural act  of  divine  omnipotence,  but  comes  as  much  within  the 
ordinary  dispensation  of  Providence  as  our  birth  and  death.  We 
cannot  attempt  to  pierce  the  mystery  which  surrounds  the  grave  and 


278  THJi    KING    AND    THE    KINGDOM:  [part  ii. 

the  afterlife  ;  but  the  repeated  mention  of  '  three  days '  by  Jesus, 
and  the  fact  that  the  interval  between  his  death  and  his  uprising- 
coincided  with  what  he  had  led  his  disciples  to  expect,  may  be  taken 
to  indicate  rather  a  fixed  relationship  of  cause  and  effect  than  an 
arbitrary  decree  apart  therefrom. 

Here,  in  verses  18  and  ^20,  as  so  often  in  John's  gosi^el,  mention  is 

made  of  '  the  Jews  : '  '  the  Jews  therefore  answered  .  .  .  the  Jews 

therefore  said,'  obviously  denoting-  the  inhabitants  of  Jerusalem  or  of 

'Jewry'  generally.     'His  disciples'   (verse  17)  took  one  side, 'the 

Jews '  the   other.      It  was  a  recognised  fact  that  the  disciples  of 

Jesus  were  chiefly  Galilaeans,  as  distinguished  from  Jews.     The  dis- 

2CjMat.  (I'.i     tinction   was   sharp   and   clear.     Jesus   was   known   as   'Jesus   the 

14  Mark  Tu    Galilgean,'  and  Peter  was  recognized  as  such  :  '  thou  art  a  Galilgean.' 

And  on  the  day  of  Pentecost  it  was  observed,  as  a  self-evident  fact, 

■2  Acts  7       '  Behold,  art  not  all  these  which  speak  Galilaeans  ?  ' 

Matthew  describes  the  cures  wrought  by  Jesus  in  the  temple  as 
'  wonderful,'  and  relates  that  the  children  within  the  building- 
occupied  themselves  in  chanting  the  words  which  had  been  uttered 
by  the  multitude  the  day  before  :  '  Hosanua  to  the  son  of  David.' 
We  know  how  cpiickly  a  popular  melody  can  be  caught  up  by  children, 
and  it  is  not  suriDrising  that  the  words  of  the  triumph-song  should 
still  have  been  re-echoed  in  this  way.  The  chief  priests  and  scribes 
watched  the  miracles,  but  with  critical  and  jealous  eyes,  and  they  cast 
upon  Jesus  the  responsibility  for  these  childish  outcries,  which  they 

21  Mat.  15,10  seem  to  have  considered  a  profanation.  '  But  when  the  chief  priests 
and  the  scribes  saw  the  wonderful  things  that  he  did,  and  the  children 
that  were  crying  in  the  temple  and  saying,  Hosanna  to  the  son  of 
David,  they  were  moved  with  indignation,  and  said  unto  him, 
Hearest  them  what  these  are  saying-  ? '  However  erroneous  the 
criticism,  it  was  an  honest  one  :  'they  were  moved  with  indignation.' 
The  strength  of  men's  convictions  and  feelings  is  no  evidence  of 
Goundness  of  judgment  in  matters  either  political  or  religious  ;  and 
very  often  those  who  are  most  positive  and  outspoken  in  their 
opinions  and  condemnations  are  utterly  in  the  wrong.  Regarded 
from  different  points  of  view,  that  which  is  oflensive  to  one  man  may 
appear  harmless  and  justifiable  to  another.  Jesus  was  not  dis- 
posed to  reprove  or  to  silence  the  children.  They  were  far  from 
understanding  the  deep  import  of  the  words  they  sang,  but  had  not 
David  declared  that  even  the  mouths  of  infants  might  be  taught  to 

•ji  Mat.  k;  praise  God  most  perfectly  ?  '  And  Jesus  said  unto  them,  Yea  :  did 
ye  never  rend,  Out  of  the  mouth  of  babes  and  sucklings  thou  hast 

8  ps.  -2  perfected  praise  ? '  The  original  passage  stands  :  '  Out  of  the  mouth 
of  babes  and  sucklings  hast  thou  established  strength.'  Strength  in 
utterance  :  that  is,  perfection  of  expression,  which  may  be  in  the 
direction  either  of  truth  or  praise,  or  both.     The  same  combination 

r,  Heb.  r  of  ideas  is  found  in  the  passage  :  '  having  offered  up  prayers  and 
supplications  with  strong  crying.'  Nothing  Jesus  said  or  did  was 
approved  of  by  his  enemies.  Priests  and  scribes  could  not  tamely 
brook  his  teaching  of  the  people  that  the  temple  had  become  trans- 
formed into  a  robbers'  den.  That  he  should  take  upon  himself  to 
declare  that  trading  in  the  temple  to  be  a  sacrilege,  which  they  had 
suffered  to  exist  as  a  necessary  custom,  Avas  galling  to  their  pride. 


I'ART  II.]         A    STUDY    OF    THE    FOUR    GOStELS.  279 

Either  their  influence  over  the  people  would  he  lessened,  or  his  voice 
must  be  silenced.  They  were  bent  up(jn  proceeding-  to  extremities. 
'  And  the  chief  priests  and  the  scribes  heard  it,  and  sought  how  they  n  Maiu  is 
might  destroy  him.'  The  clerical  party  were  the  authors  of  the 
scheme,  but  Luke  states  that  they  were  abetted  by  the  leading 
citizens.  'And  he  was  teaching  daily  in  the  temple.  But  the  chiei'  i'.iLuke47 
priests  and  the  scribes  and  the  principal  men  of  the  people  sought  to 
destroy  him.'  All  they  could  possibly  fear  from  him  was  a  loss  of 
prestige  to  themselves,  the  triumph  of  his  arguments  and  teaching 
over  theirs.  But  vanity  and  self-esteem  are  potent  factors,  especially 
in  conjunction  with  self-interest,  and  the  astounding  popularity  of 
Jesus  was  a  suflficient  explanation  of  their  policy.  '  For  they  feared  n  Mark  is 
him,  for  all  the  multitude  was  astonished  at  his  teaching.'  That, 
which  was  the  cliief  motive  of  their  action,  rendered  it  very  difficult 
of  accomplishment.  '  And  they  could  not  find  what  they  might  do,  v.)  LuUe  -is 
for  the  people  all  hung  upon  him,  listening.'  The  Authorised 
Version  stands,  '  Were  very  attentive  to  hear  him.'  Alford  notes : 
'  litemUy,  hung  on  him  in  hearing  him.'  Young  has  :  '  were  hanging 
on  him,  hearing  him.'  Tischeudorf  also  agrees  with  the  Revisers. 
To  what  an  extent  might  not  the  history  of  the  world  have  been 
changed,  if  Jesus  had  been  suffered  to  go  on  unimpeded  ;  if  these 
priests  and  scribes  had  been  otherwise  disposed,  or  had  possessed  less 
power  of  doing  evil  ;  if  the  life  of  Jesus  had  been  prolonged,  and  his 
personal  ministry  continued  in  the  world,  say  thirty  or  forty  years 
longer  !  The  doctrine  of  human  free  will  is  a  stern  reality,  a  cardinal 
law  of  our  being,  as  immutable  in  Clod's  government  of  the  moral 
world,  as  is  the  law  of  gravitation  in  the  physical  universe.  God  has 
never  been  known  to  annihilate  either  the  one  or  the  other.  Man's 
history  is  of  his  own  making.  '  It  was  necessary  that  the  word  of  13  Acts  40, 
(Jod  should  first  be  spoken  to  you.     Seeing  ye  thrust  it  from  you,  ' 

and  judge  yourselves  unworthy  of  eternal  life,  lo,  we  turn  to  the 
Gentiles.  For  so  hath  the  Lord  commanded  us.'  That  is  the  inter- 
pretation given  by  Paul  and  Barnal)as  to  the  divine  plan  of  salvation 
of  which  Jesus  is  the  appointed  author  and  finisher.  In  how  many 
things,  since  the  apostles'  time,  have  men,  intentionally  and  unin- 
tentionally, through  passion,  blindness,  error,  ignorance,  put  away  from 
them  the  doctrine  of  Jesus  and  the  salvation  he  designs  for  mankind ! 

Unmoved  by  the  opposition  he  encountered,  and  undeterred  by  the 
danger  he  ran,  Jesus  continued  to  teach  daily  in  the  temple,  but  never 
passing  a  night  in  the  city.     '  And  every  evening  (Gr.  whenever  even-  n  Mark  10 
ing  came)  he  went  forth  out  of  the  city.'     Probably  that  was  done  for 
safety,  quite  as  much  as  for  convenience. 

The  fourth  evangelise,  also,  alludes  to  the  growing  popularity  of 
Jesus  at  Jerusalem  during  the  feast  in  which  the  cleansing  of  the 
temple  occurred.  '  Now  when  he  was  in  Jerusalem  at  the  pass-  -^  Joim  23 
over,  during  the  feast,  many  believed  on  his  name,  beholding  his  signs 
which  he  did.'  Jesus  showed  no  disposition  to  rely  on  the  popular 
favour.  '  But  Jesus  did  not  trust  himself  unto  them."  The  Autho-  „  -n 
rised  Version  stands,  '  But  Jesus  did  not  commit  himself  unto  them.' 
The  word  '  commit '  is  changed  to  trust  by  Alford,  Tischeudorf  and 
Young,  as  well  as  by  the  Revisers.  Alford  explains  :  '  In  the  original, 
the  same  word  is  used  for  helievod  in  verse  23,  and  for  trust  in  this 
verse.'     That  is  a  very  important  observation  :  whenever  belief  or 


■2  John  24 


280  THE    KING    AND    THE    KINCWOM :  [pabt  ii. 

faith  is  mentioned  in  Scripture,  it  is  well  for  us  to  consider  whether 
its  proper  equivalent  iu  English  is  not  trust  or  confidence.  The 
Greek  verb  here  ispisfeifd,  which  is  generally  translated  as  '  believe,' 
and  its  derivitive  pisfis  as  'faith.'  A  right  apprehension  of  the  true 
sense  of  both  words  will  go  far  towards  removing  various  erroneous 
doctrines  which  have  arisen  out  of  their  misapplication.  The  confi- 
dence which  the  multitude  were  ready  to  place  in  Jesus,  as  their 
leader,  he  was  not  able  to  place  in  them  as  his  followers.  The  evange- 
list adds  that  Jesus  possessed  a  full,  intuitive  knowledge  of  men's 
characters  :  'for  that  he  knew  all  men.'  This  marvellous  perceptive 
faculty  placed  him  above  the  necessity  of  seeking  the  testimony  of 
those  whose  judgment  of  others  was  based  on  intimacy  and  long  obser- 

„  25  vution  :  '  and  because  he  needed  not  that  any  one  should  bear  witness 
concerning  man  (or,  a  man).'  His  superior  and  unerrino-  insight 
rendered  him  indepeudtnil,  of  the  ordinary  sources  of  information  : 

„  -'5  '  for  he  himself  knew  what  was  in  man  (or,  the  man).'  Alford  renders 
'  of  himself  he  knew,'  but  the  word  '  of '  is  not  introduced  by  other 
translators,  and  the  rendering  in  the  '  Englishman's  Greek  New 
Testament '  is  simply,  '  for  he  knew.'  Alford  certainly  goes  too  far 
in  saying  :  '  Nothing  less  than  dirine  Icnotckdye  is  here  set  forth  .  .  . 
As  the  text  now  stands,  it  asserts  an  entire  knowledge  of  all  that  is 
in  all  men.'  Assuredly  that  is  not  the  drift  and  intention  of  the 
evangelist.  His  assertion  can  only  have  value  on  the  assumption  that 
it  is  based  upon  his  own  observation,  or  upon  some  plain  declaration 
of  Jesus.  The  latter  we  have  not  ;  and  John  is  only  referring  to 
persons  with  whom  Jesus  came  into  contact,  nor  does  he  say,  as 
Alford  presumed  to  say,  that  Jesus  knew  all  that  Avas  in  all  of  them. 

During  one  of  the  daily  preachings  in  the  temple,  the  declared 
enemies  of  Jesus  came  to  him  in  a  body,  and  demanded  of  him  under 

■20  Luke  1,  2  what  authority  he  acted,  and  from  whom  it  emanated.  '  And  it  came 
to  pass,  on  one  of  the  days,  as  he  was  teaching  the  people  in  the 
temple,  and  preaching  the  gospel,  there  came  upon  him  the  chief 
priests  and  the  scribes  with  the  elders  ;  and  they  spake,  saying  unto 
him,  Tell  us,  by  what  authority  doest  thou  these  things  ?  or  who  is 
he  that  gave  thee  this  authority  "i  '  In  Matthew's  account  the  con- 
text makes  it  evident  that  this  took  place  on  the  second  morning  of 
the  preaching  in  the  temple,  after  the  discourse  about  the  withered 

21  Mat.  23  fig  tree.  *  And  when  he  was  come  into  the  temple,  the  chief  priests 
and  the  elders  of  the  people  came  unto  him  as  he  was  teaching,  and 
said,  By  what  authority  doest  thou  these  things  ?  and  who  gave 
thee  this  authority  ?  '     In  ]VIark  also  this  follows  immediately  upon 

n  Mark  27,  the  incident  of  the  fig  tree.  '  And  they  come  again'to  Jerusalem  :  and 
"'"  as  he  was  walking  in  the  temple,  there  come  to  him  the  chief  priests, 
and  the  scribes,  and  the  elders  ;  and  they  said  unto  him,  Ey  what 
authority  doest  thou  these  things  ?  or  who  gave  thee  this  authority 
to  do  these  things  ? '  It  may  be  assumed  that  '  these  things  "  referred 
to  his  driving  out  the  buyers  and  sellers  from  the  temple  three  days 
before.  It  would  have  been  useless  to  have  done  that,  and  then  sulier 
the  same  traffic  to  recommence.  The  daily  visits  of  Jesus  to  the 
temple,  lasting  from  early  morning  to  evening,  enabled  him  to  guard 
against  and  prevent  any  re]3etition  of  the  scandal.  Possibly  the  space 
formerly  used  as  a  market  was  now  occupied  by  Jesus  and  the  con- 


PART  II.]         .1    STUDY    OF    THE   FOUR    (U)SPEL^.  281 

liTCg-atioii  of  his  Jiearers.  As  this  altered  state  of  things  went  on  clay 
after  day,  the  buyers  and  sellers  would  naturally  complain  to  the 
authorities,  jjrobably  protest  against  interference  with  what  they 
deemed  a  ri^ht  of  use  and  custom.  It  was  not  an  easy  question  to 
deal  with  :  it  would  be  equally  difficult  to  justify  and  insist  upon  the 
holding  of  the  market  as  fornierly,  or  to  declare  the  presence  of  Jesus 
and  his  work  of  teaching  and  healing  in  the  temple  to  be  either  illegal 
or  improper.  It  l)ehove(l  all  ])arties  to  act  warily,  especially  in  view 
of  the  temper  of  the  multitude  which  daily  thronged  to  hear  Jesus. 
That  conjoint  action  was  taken  by  priests,  scribes  and  elders,  indicates 
that  there  must  Innc  been  previous  discussion  of  the  question,  and 
arrangement  as  to  the  method  to  bo  adopted.  The  first  step  was  to 
l)ring  Jesus  within  the  scope  of  their  judicial  powers.  Alford  explains 
that  the  three  classes,  chief  priests,  elders  and  scribes,  '  make  up  the 
members  of  the  Sanhedrim.  It  was  an  official  mcsmijo,  sent  with  a 
view^  to  make  our  Saviour  declare  Himself  to  be  a  prophet  sent  from 
God — in  which  case  the  Sanhedrim  had  power  to  take  cognizance  of 
his  proceedings,  as  of  a  professed  Teacher.  Thus  the  Sanhedrim 
sent  a  deputation  to  John  on  his  appearing  as  a  Teacher,  John  i. 
11).  The  question  was  the  result  of  a  combination  to  destroy  Jesus, 
Luke  xix.  47,  48.'  Whether  that  be  the  correct  explanation  or  not, 
Jesus  saw  fit  to  refrain  from  giving  any  direct  answer  to  their  ques- 
tion, but  met  it  by  putting  another  to  them.  'And  he  answered -'o  Luke  .-5 
and  said  unto  them,  I  will  also  ask  you  a  question  (Gr.  word)  ;  and 
tell  me. '  If  they  would  answer  him,  he  was  ready  to  answer  them. 
'  xVnd  Jesus  answered  and  said  unto  them,  I  will  ask  you  one  -n  Mat.  n 
^piestion  (Gr.  word),  which  if  ye  tell  me,  I  likewise  will  tell  you  by 
what  authority  I  do  these  things.'  '  And  Jesus  said  unto  them,  I  will  n  >iaii<  -^'-^ 
ask  you  one  question  (Gr.  word),  and  answer  me,  and  I  will  tell  you 
by  what  authority  I  do  these  things.'  The  question  was  simple  and 
direct.  'The  baptism  of  John,  was  it  from  heaven,  or  from  men  ?'  i^oLuk.^ 
They,  as  guides  of  the  people,  must  have  formed  an  opinion  on  that 
important  matter,  having  sent  priests  and  Levites  from  Jerusalem  to  i  J'*"  i'' 
investigate  and  report  on  it.  'The  baptism  of  John,  v\'a8  it  from  n  Mark  so 
heaven,  or  from  men  ?  answer  me.'  '  The  baptism  of  John,  whence  was  ^i  ^rat.  25 
it?  from  heaven  or  from  men?'  If  they  knew,  why  should  they 
liesitate  to  say  ?  Why  should  they  need  to  confer  so  mysteriously 
together  ?  Did  they  difier  iu  opinion  ?  Alas  I  they  were  not  discuss- 
ing as  to  what  would  be  the  right  answer,  but  only  the  effect  of  giving 
a  reply  at  aU.  AVith  them,  })olicy  stood  foremost,  and  truth  in  the 
background.  The  three  evangelists  coincide  very  closely,  as  though 
all  quoted  from  the  same  record.  Information  as  to  this  private  con- 
ference and  the  motives  which  animated  those  who  took  part  in  it, 
must  ha\e  been  obtained  later,  and  from  one  of  them,  probably  some 
convert  to  the  faith  of  Jesus.  'And  they  reasoned  with  themselves,  „  i-j, •.>. 
saying,  If  we  shall  say,  From  heaven,  he  will  say  unto  us.  Why  then 
did  ye  not  believe  him  ?  But  if  we  shall  say,  From  men  ;  we  fear  the 
multitude  ;  for  all  hold  John  as  a  prophet.'  '  And  they  reasoned  with  u  Mark  m, 
themselves,  saying.  If  we  shall  say  from  heaven  ;  he  will  say,  Why  then  ^" 

did  ye  not  believe  him  ?  But  should  we  say  from  men  (or.  But  shall 
we  say,  From  men  ? ) — they  feared  the  people  :  for  all  verily  held 
John  to  be  a  prophet  (or,  for  all  held  John  to  be  a  prophet  indeed).' 
■*  And  they  reasoned  with  themselves,  staying.  If  we  shall  say,  From  I'o  Luke  5, 1 


282  THE    KING    AND    TEE    KINGDOM:  [part  ii 

heaven  ;  he  will  say,  AYhy  did  ye  uofc  believe  him  ?    But  if  we  shall 

say,  From  men  ;  all  the  people  will  stone  us  :  for  they  be  persuaded 

that  John  was  a  prophet.'     They  saw  no  way  of  extricating  themselves 

from  that  dilemma.     If  they  answered  at  all,  they  would  either  be 

constrained  to  admit  that  their  opposition  to  Jesus  was  contrary  to 

the  will  of  heaven,  or  they  would  have  to  f<tce  the  popular  resentment, 

probably  to  sufler  from  it.     They  resolved  not  to  commit  themselves 

■i\  Mill,  -ii     either  way.     '  And  they  answered  Jesus,  and  said,  We  know  not.' 

11  Mark  :j:j    '  And  they  answered  Jesus   and   say,  We  know  not.'     '  And   they 

lio  Luke  r     answered,  that  they  knew  not  whence  it  was.'     It  was  not  that  they 

did  not  know,  but  that  they  would  not  say.     Alford  expresses  the 

opinion  that  these  Jewish  rulers  had  never  believed  in  John  as  a 

heaven-sent  prophet.     He  says  :  '  These  "  blind  leaders  of  the  blind  " 

had  so  tar  made  an  insincere  concession  to  the  people's  persuasion,  as 

to  allow  John  to  pass  for  a  prophet  ;  but  they  shrank  from  the  reproof 

which  was  sure  to   follow   their   acknowledging  it   now.'     Having 

admitted  themselves  incapable  of  deciding  as  to  the  authority  of  the 

Baptist,  it  was  obviously  out  of  place  for  them  to  call  in  question  that 

■n  Mat.  JT     of  Jesus,  and  useless  for  him  to  bring  his  claims  before  them.     '  He 

also  said  unto  them,  Neither  tell  I  you  by  what  authority  I  do  these 

iiMaiks:!    things.'     'And  Jesus  saith  unto  them,  Neither  tell  I  you  by  what 

Lukes     authority  I  do  these  things.'     'And  Jesus  said  unto  them.  Neither 

tell  I  you  by  what  authority  I  do  these  things.' 

This  account  furnishes  an  interesting  example  of  the  '  Common 
Tradition  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels.'  Taking  Mark,  verses  28  to  33,  the 
Avords  common  to  all  three,  Matthew,  Mark  and  Luke,  are  as  follows  : 
'  Said — By  what  authority  doest  thou  these  things  ?  who  gave  thee 
this  authority  ? — And — said — them,  I  will  ask  of  you — question — me. 
The  baptism  of  John,  was  it  from  heaven,  or  from  men  ? — Reasoned 
— themselves,  saying.  If  we  shall  say  from  heaven  ;  he  will  say,  Why 
— did  ye  not  believe  him — Should  we  say  from  men — all — John — a 
prophet.  And — answered — know — And — unto  them,  Neither  tell 
I  you  by  what  authority  I  do  these  things.'  Now,  if  ]\Iatthew,  or 
another  of  the  apostles,  noted  down  at  the  time  what  took  place,  this 
is  just  the  kind  of  memorandum  one  would  expect  to  find.  Care  is 
taken  to  put  down  in  full  the  question,  the  reply  of  Jesus,  the  reason- 
ings of  the  questioners,  and  the  closing  observation  of  Jesus.  In 
addition  thereto,  a  word  or  two  is  thrown  in  here  and  there,  serving 
sufficiently  to  guide  the  memory  in  subsequently  enlarging  the 
narrative.  It  is  all  very  natural,  and  the  only  conceivable  way  by 
which  anyone  except  a  verbatim  shorthand  reporter  could  have 
recorded  the  incident  in  a  reliable  and  satisfactory  manner.  The 
authors  of  the  '  Common  Tradition  '  assume  that  the  three  evangelists 
borrowed  from  one  original  document ;  but  that  raises  a  difficulty  with 
respect  to  jMatthew's  gospel.  Dean  Alford  states  that  its  author  '  has. 
been  universally  believed  to  be  the  Apostle  IMatthew  ; '  and  that  '  the 
testimony  of  the  early  Church  is  unanimous,  that  ]\Iatthcw  ^xvotcf^rsf 
among  tlie  Evangelists.'  In  that  case,  he  can  hardly  be  supposed  to 
have  borrowed  from  the  same  original  tradition  as  Mark  and  Luke. 
Is  it  not  more  probable  that  the  condensed  original  tradition,  the 
rough,  apostolic  note-book  which  is  the  basis  of  the  first  three  gospels, 
was  that  of  Matthew  himself  ?  Mark  aud  Luke  would  naturally  use 
that,  as  the  oldest  and  most  reliable  record,  comparing  and  supple- 


TAKT  II.]         .4    STUDY    OF    THE    FOUR    GOSPELS.  283 

menting:  it  with  any  independent  traditions  handed  do\Yn  to  them. 
The  enhirj>cment  of  Mattliew's  original  men)oirs,  even  hy  his  own 
hand,  would  depend  for  its  correctness  to  some  extent  on  memory. 

To  the  baffled  questioners  Jesas  spoke  a  short  parable.  He  began 
with  the  words,  '  But  what  think  ye  ? '  However  reticent  they  might  ui  Mat. 
be  about  the  baptism  of  John,  on  this  subject  they  could  have  no 
difficulty  in  forming  an  opinion.  'A  man  had  two  sons.  And  he 
came  to  the  first,  and  said,  Son  (Or.  Child),  go  work  to  day  in  the 
vineyard.'  Young  and  Tischendorf  render  literally  '  son  '  as  '  child ' 
and  'two  sons 'as 'two  children.'  The  request  of  the  father  was 
met  by  a  point  blank  refusal.  '  And  he  answered  and  said,  1  will  „ 
not.'  Subsequently  he  changed  his  mind,  and  did  Avhat  he  had 
been  bidden  :  '  but  afterward  he  repented  himself,  and  Avent.'  The 
father  made  the  same  demand  upon  the  other  son.  '  And  he  came 
to  the  second,  and  said  likewise.'  The  reply  is  given  both  in  the 
Authorised  and  Revised  Versions  as  follows  :  '  And  he  answered  and  „ 
said,  I  go,  sir  :  and  went  not.'  Young  also  inserts  an  itahcised 
word,  tv'ill  instead  of  ffo :  'I  will,  sir.'  Tischendorf  renders,  '  Yea, 
sir,'  and  Luther,  '  Herr,  ja.  Sir,  yes.'  These  are  obviously  given  as 
supposed  equi\alents  of  the  original,  not  as  direct  renderings. 
Alford  puts  the  italicised  word  '  g-o  '  between  brackets,  adding  the 
note,  'not  exjn-essed  in  the  original.'  The  form  of  expression  does 
not  seem  to  have  been  colloquial,  and  if  not,  Jesus  must  have 
intentionally  omitted  to  place  any  word  between  'I'  and  'Sir.' 
If  a  note  of  exclamation  were  added,  the  two  words  would  signify  a 
contemptuous  refusal,  as  though  the  father  had  asked  what  was 
unreasonable  ;  a  note  of  interrogation  would  give  to  the  words  a  tone 
of  expostulation.  The  sense  of  '  I — Sir '  depends  entirely  on  the 
emphasis  of  the  \-oice  and  the  manner  of  the  speaker.  It  may  be 
made  to  express  either  astonishment,  doubt,  hesitation,  assent  or 
dissent,  combined  with  perfect  courtesy  or  tacit  reproof.  But 
without  introducing  any  idea  of  that  kind,  letting  the  two  words 
stand  by  themselves,  as  they  were  left  by  Matthew,  the  meaning  is 
altogether  vague,  which  Jesus  probably  intended  it  to  be,  as  fitly 
representing  their  mental  attitude  with  respect  to  the  Baptist.  The 
'  Sir '  was  sufficient  to  show  respect,  the  '  I '  to  indicate  a  conscious- 
ness of  duty  :  what  intention  was  hidden  under  a  form  of  reply 
so  uncertain  and  equivocal  remained  to  be  seen,  and  was  forthwith 
proved  by  the  event  :  '  and  went  not.' 

The  parable,  short  and  simple,  was  finished  by  the  time  they  may 
have  thought  only  the  opening  scene  was  reached,  and  sharp  anil 
clear  rang  out  the  question  of  Jesus  :  'Whether  of  the  twain  did  the 
will  of  his  father  ? '  There  could  be  no  doubt  on  that  point. 
'  They  say.  The  first.'  Then  Jesus  took  the  unusual  course  of  himself 
explaining  and  applying  the  jjarable.  '  Jesus  saith  unto  them.  Verily 
I  say  unto  you,  that  the  publicans  and  the  harlots  go  into  the 
kingdom  of  God  beibre  you.'  Those  who  had  been  openly,  notoriously 
unjust  and  sinful  were  entering  Clod's  kingdom,  whilst  those  who  had 
made  great  professions  of  reverence  and  obedience  were  holding 
themselves  aloof.  The  Baptist  had  come,  an  uncompromising  teacher 
of  moral  rectitude,  and  what  had  been  the  result  ?  The  despised 
tax-gathei-ers  and  erring  women  had  believed  and  honoured  him  as 
a  heaven-sent  Teacher  ;  and  these  priests  and  scribes,  whose  solemn 


284  THE   KING    AND    THE    KINGDOM:  [pakt  ii. 

deputation  and  enquiries  amounted  to  nothing  more  than  a  pre- 
tentious, hypocritical,  formal  '  I — ^Sir,'  had  seen  the  minds,  hearts 
and  lives  of  the  populace  touched,  moved,  changed,  by  the  Baptist's 
call  to  reformation,  yet  themselves  stood  aloof  from  the  inspired 
movement,  and  could  not  even  yet  say  that  they  believed  the  Baptist 
to  be  what  he  had  professed  himself,  the  forerunner  of  One  mightier 
:!  Mat.  \i  than  himself,  who  should  baptize  them  '  with  holy  spirit  and  with 
:>i  Mat.  3-2  fu'c.'  '  For  John  came  unto  you  in  the  way  of  righteousness,  and 
ye  believed  him  not  ;  but  the  publicans  and  the  harLjts  believed 
him  :  and  ye,  when  ye  saw  it,  did  not  even  repent  yourselves  after- 
Avard,  that  ye  might  believe  him.'  This  attitude  of  passive  in- 
ditference  was  equivalent  to  rejection,  and  was  so  regarded  generally, 
7Luko*.>,  30  for  we  are  elsewhere  told  :  '  And  all  t]\e  people  when  they  heard,  and 
the  publicans,  justified  God,  being  baptized  with  the  baptism  of 
John.  But  the  Pharisees  and  the  law_yers  rejected  for  themselves 
the  counsel  of  God,  being  not  baptized  of  him.' 

The  expression  *go  into  the  kingdom  of  God,'  calls  for  con- 
sideration. The  act  is  represented  as  purely  A'oluntary.  Men  are 
not  carried  into  God's  kingdom  by  supernatural  power,  but  enter  into 
it  of  their  own  free  will.  If  the  '  kingdom  of  God'  and  the  '  kingdom 
of  heaven'  be  not  strictly  synonymous,  so  as  to  be  used  inter- 
changeably, there  is  a  close  connection  between  them.  The  Lord's 
prayer  indicates  that  the  latter  is  bound  up  with  the  former,  and 
must  come  as  its  perfect  realization  :  '  Thy  kingdom  come.  Thy 
Avill  be  done  in  earth  as  it  is  in  heaven.'  Preachers  have  been  wont 
to  talk  much  more  about  going  'to  God'  and  going  'to  heaven,' 
than  about  entering  the  'kingdom  of  God'  and  the  'kingdom  of 
heaven  ; '  and  that  desired  consummation,  be  it  what  it  may,  has  been 
deemed  altogether  impossible  of  attainment  on  earth,  and  therefore 
relegated  to  another  life  in  another  world.  So  the  gospel  of  Jesus 
has  come  to  be  represented  as  a  scheme  aiming  at  the  sahation  of 
individuals  in  heaven,  aj^art  from  that  of  mankind  in  general  both  in 
earth  and  heaven.  Dr.  Young's  literal  renderings,  '  reign  of  God,' 
'  reign  of  the  heavens,'  help  to  a  better  understanding  of  the  matter. 
Individuals,  one  after  another,  may  place  themselves  under  the  '  reign 
of  God '  by  submitting  to  the  commands  which  Jesus  laid  upon  his 
disciples  and  followers  ;  but  the  '  reign  of  the  heavens '  seems  to 
refer  to  a  state  of  existence  in  which  all  alike  are  living  under  the 
divine  rulership. 

The  parable  of  the  two  sons  was  followed  by  another.     Jesus  said : 

-_>!  Mat.  33     '  Hear  another  parable.'     Mark  and  Luke,  not  having  recorded  the 

VI  -Mark  1      prcvious  parable,  make  no  allusion  to  it.     Mark  says :  '  And  he  began 

to  speak  unto  them  in  parables.'     Luke  notes  that  he  addressed  him- 

•ioi.uke'i     self  to   the   people   generally  :  'And   he  began  to  speak   unto  the 

„     'J     people  this  parable.'     Luke  states  simply  :  '  A  man  planted  a  vine- 

7  •>  Mark  2     yard.'     Mark  :  'A  man  planted  a  vineyard,  and  set  a  hedge  about 

it,  and  digged  a  pit  for  the  wine-press,  and  built  a  tower.'     Young 

renders,  '  digged  an  under-wine-vat,'  which  stands  in  the  Authorised 

Yersion  '  digged  a  place  for  the  winefat.'     Instead  of  the  italicised 

words  '  a  place  lor,'  the  Revisers  have  inserted  '  a  pit  for,'  which 

they  have  not  italicised.     Matthew  describes  the  man  as  a  house- 

■i\  Mat.  33    holder.     '  There  was  a  man  that  was  a  householder,  which  planted  a 


PART  II.]         A    STUDY    OF    THE    FOUR    (iOHFELS.  285 

Ainevard,  and  set  a  hedue  about  it,  and  di<;\o'ed  a  winepress  in  it,  and 
Iniilt  a  tower,'     The  word  here  rendei'ed  'winepress'  is  lenon ;  in 
Mark  it  is  hitpolenion .     The  phmter  of  the  vineyard  being  a  'iiouse- 
hokler,'  not  a  cultivator,  leased   it   to   others:  'and  let  it  out  to  .^i  ji,,^  30 
husbandmen.'     The  three  evangelists  use  that  expression.   According 
to  the  Authorised  Version  they  also  agree  in  stating,  'and  went  into 
a  far  country.'   Alford  notes :  '  the  original  has  only  lofl  ihc  cowitnj ,- ' 
Young  and  Tischendoif  render,  '  and  Avent  abroad  ; '  the  Revisers, 
'  and  went  into  another  country.'     Luke  adds  the  words  :  '  for  a  long 
time.'     JMark  continues  :  '  And  at  the  season  he  sent  to  the  husband-  i-  -^la'^  - 
men  a  servant  ((ir.  bondservant),  that  he  might  receive  from  the 
husbandmen  of  the  fruits  of   the  vineyard.'     Luke:  'And  at  the  •■ii»i-"i<f  i'» 
season  he  sent  unto  the  husbandmen  a  servant  (Gr.  bondservant), 
that  they  should  give  him  of  the  fruit  of  the  vineyard.'     IMatthew 
represents  the  despatch  of  '  servants,'  not  of  '  a  servant,'  and  this 
discrepancy  between  the  evangelists  continues  throughout  the  parable. 
It  can  scarcely  be  considered  a  contradiction  :  probably,  naturally, 
the  chief  servant  would  have  assistants,  but  the  negotiations  would 
be  between  the  tenants  and  himself,  and  against  him,  as  well  as  those 
with  him,  their  animosity  would  be  directed.     Matthew  intimates 
that  the  mission  was  in  ample  time,  before  the  actual  commencement 
of  the  season.     '  And  when  the  season  of  the  fruits  drew  near,  he  ii  Mut.  ?a 
sent  his  servants  (Gr.  bondservants)  to  the  husbandmen,  to  receive 
his  fruits  (or,  the  fruits  of  it).'     Instead  of  meeting  the  just  demands 
of  their  landlord,  the  occupiers   assaulted  his  representatives,  and 
sent  them  away  without  payment.     '  xlnd  they  took  him,  and  beat  i.;  Mark  :$ 
him,  and  sent  him  away  empty.'     '  But  the  husbandmen  beat  him,  -jo  Luke  lu 
and  sent  him  away  empty.'     Matthew  states  that  several  servants 
were  mentioned,  and  that  they  suffered  in  various  ways.     '  And  the  -ii  Mat.  3.5 
husbandmen  took  his  servants  (Gr.  bondservants),  and  beat  one,  and 
killed  another,  and  stoned  another,'     A  larger  number  were  then 
sent,  but  they  met  with  no  better  treatment,     '  Again,  he  sent  other      „     30 
servants  (Gr.  bondservants)  more  than  the  first  :  and  they  did  unto 
them  in  like  manner.'     Luke  describes  one  servant  only  sent  at  a 
time.     'And  he  sent  yet  another  servant  (Gr.  bond.servant) ;  and -'oli  kiii. 
him  also  they  beat,  and  handled  him  shamefully,  and  send  him  away  ^' 

empty.  And  he  sent  yet  a  third  :  and  him  also  they  wounded,  and 
cast  him  forth.'  Mark  also  records  the  sending  of  a  single  servant 
on  two  other  occasions,  but  he  then  adds  that  many  others  also  were 
sent.  '  And  again  he  sent  unto  them  another  servant  (Gr.  bond-  vi  Mark  i,  ■ 
servant)  ;  and  him  they  wounded  in  the  head,  and  handled  shame- 
fully. And  he  sent  another  ;  and  him  they  killed  :  and  many  others  ; 
beating  some,  and  killing  some.'  These  last  words,  '  and  many 
others  :  beating  some,  and  killing  some,'  enable  us  to  harmonise  the 
evangelists.  Luke  states  that  one  servant  was  sent  alone  on  three 
scA-eral  occasions  ;  Mark  agrees  with  that,  adding  the  fact  that  the 
same  thing  happened  subsequently  and  repeatedly.  Matthew  passes 
over  ill  silence  the  sending  of  particular  envoys,  and  contents  himself 
with  grouping  all  the  messages  and  messengers  together. 

In  verse  4  of  Mark  the  Revisers  have  omitted  the  words  '  and  at 
him  they  cast  stones,'  and  the  word  '  again '  before  '  he  sent,'  in 
\'erse  5,  on  the  authority  of  the  two  oldest  MSS, 

Luke  represents  the  proprietor  of  the  vineyard  deliberating  with 


286  THE   KING    AND    THE    KINGDOM:  [part  ii. 

himself  as  to  what  further  steps  it  was  in  his  power  to  take,  and 
resolving  to  send  his  son,  whom  he  dearly  loved,  hoping  that  respect 

•_'0TAik<"i3  would  be  paid  to  him,  'And  the  lord  of  the  yineyard  said,  What 
shall  I  do  ?  I  will  send  my  beloved  son  :  it  may  be  they  will 
reverence  him.'  The  Authorised  Version  adds,  '  when  they  see  him,' 
Avhich  is  omitted,  not  being  in  the  two  oldest  MSS.     Mark  stands  : 

1:2  MMik  r,  '  He  had  yet  one,  a  beloved  son  :  he  sent  him  last  unto  them,  saying, 
They  will  reverence  my  son.'  '  He  had  yet,'  takes  the  place  of 
'  having  yet  therefore,'  and  the  word  '  also  '  before  *last'  is  omitted, 
in  accordance  with  the  two  oldest  IMSS.  Here  also  Matthew  is 
M;it. :;?  somewhat  briefer.  '  But  afterward  he  sent  unto  them  his  sou, 
sayiug,  They  will  reverence  my  son.'  The  word  '  afterward '  here 
and  in  Young  and  Tischendorf  takes  the  place  of  '  last  of  all '  in  the 
Authorised  Version.  Far  from  showing  reverence  to  the  son,  the 
husbandmen  conferred  together,  discussing  the  advantage  they  might 
gain  by  putting  him  to  death  and  holding  the  vineyard  as  their  own. 
„  .-is  '  But  tlie  husbandmen,  when  they  saw  the  son,  said  among  themselves, 
This  is  the  heir  :  come,  let  us  kill  him,  and  take  his  inheritance.'  In 
their  wicked  folly  they  thought  that  his  death  might  be  as  good  to 

•20  Luke  14  them  as  a  legal  title  to  the  estate.  '  But  when  the  husbandmen  saw 
him,  they  reasoned  one  Avith  another,  saying.  This  is  the  heir  :  let  us 
kill  him,  that  the  inheritance  may  be  ours.'     Mark  represents  them 

T-'  Miuk  7  as  having  no  doubt  about  that.  '  But  those  husbandmen  said  among 
themselves.  This  is  the  heir  ;  come,  let  us  kill  him,  and  the  in- 
s  heritance  shall  be  ours.'  Mark  continues  :  '  And  they  took  him,  and 
killed  him,  and  cast  him  forth  out  of  the  vineyard.'  This  seems  to 
mean  that  the  murder  was  committed  inside  the  vineyard,  and  the 
dead  body  afterwards  thrown  outside.     But  the  words  are  reversed  in 

•ji  Mnt. ;?!)     the  other  evangelists.     '  And  they  took  him,  and  cast  him  forth  out 

•JO  i.uko  15  of  the  vineyard,  and  killed  him.'  '  And  they  cast  him  forth  out  of 
the  vineyard,  and  killed  him.'  Surely  the  bloody  tragedy  could  not 
end  there.  The  long-suffering  and  deeply-injured  householder  must 
needs  take  some  further  steps,  unless  he  tamely  submitted  to  the 

1-'  M;uk  !•  robbery  and  left  the  murderers  unpunished.  '  What  therefore  will  the 
lord  of  the  vineyard  do  ?  he  will  come  and  destroy  the  husbandmen, 

•JO  Luke  15,  and  will  give  the  vineyard  unto  others.'     Luke  also  :  'What  there- 

^'■'  fore  will  the  lord  of  the  vineyard  do  unto  them  ?     He  will  come  and 

destroy  these  husbandmen,  and  will  give  the  vineyard  unto  others.' 

Both  question  and  answer  might  be  spoken  l)y  Jesus  :  but  Matthew 

represents  him  as  pausing,  and  the  reply  to  have  been  given  by  the 

•ji  Mat.  to,  -11  hearers.  '  AVhen  therefore  the  lord  of  the  vineyard  shall  come,  what 
will  he  do  unto  those  husbandmen  ?  They  say  unto  him,  He  will 
miserably  destroy  those  miserable  men,  and  will  let  out  the  vineyard 
unto  other  husbandmen,  which  shall  render  him  the  fruits  in  their 
seasons.'  The  question  is  not  quite  the  same,  the  coming  of  the 
proprietor  being  included  in  it.  We  may  imagine  the  reply  to  have 
been  first,  '  he  will  come,'  and  this  to  be  a  further  question,  '  When 
he  shall  come,  what  will  he  do  ? '  The  object  of  Jesus  seems  to  ha,ve 
been  to  elicit  the  full  and  free  opinions  of  the  listeners,  and  Matthew 
records  them,  perhaps  combines  them.  The  inftimy  attaching  to  the 
robbers  and  murderers  is  emphasised.  Alford  observes :  '  In  the 
original  the  adverb  rendered  miscrahJij  is  that  belonging  to  the 
adjective  rendered  wiclced.    This  could  hardly  be  given  in  a  version 


PART  II.]         A    STUDY    OF    THE   FOUR    GOSPELS.  287 

in  English  ;  it  may  be  represenied  by  some  such  expression  as,  He 
ii'ill  deslroi/  ihem  trreiclipdJij,  wretches  as  ihoij  arc.''  The  Revisers  and 
Tischcndorf  have  brou<;'ht  out  this  peculiarity  by  altering-,  '  He  will 
miserably  destroy  those  wicked  men '  to  '  he  will  miserably  destroy 
those  miserable  men.'  Young  renders :  'Evil  men — he  will  miseral)ly 
destroy  tliem.'  Having  regard  to  Alford's  explanation  it  is  obvious 
that  a  literal  translation  would  be:  'Evil  men — evilly  he  will 
destroy  them,'  and  so  Luther  renders  it :  '  Er  wird  die  Bcisewichter 
libel  umbringen.'  It  was  the  rendering  of  evil  for  evil,  the  principle 
on  which  men's  ideas  of  justice,  human  and  divine,  had  been  founded, 
but  which  principle  Jesus  disavowed,  teaching  his  disciples  to  'render  '-  H'""-  n 
to  no  man  evil  for  evil.'  The  vineyard  being  now  freed  from  wrong- 
ful holders  would  be  transferred  to  others.  'And  will  give  the  i-' Murk  d 
vineyard  unto  others.'  Luke  uses  the  same  words.  Matthew  is 
fuller  and  more  exact.  '  And  will  let  out  the  vineyard  unto  other  -n  Mat.  41 
husbandmen,  which  shall  render  him  the  fruits  in  their  seasons.' 
An  observation  was  here  interposed  which  is  recorded  only  by  Luke. 
'  And  when  they  heard  it,  they  said,  God  forbid  (Gr.  Be  it  not  so).'  20  i.uk.i  u\ 
Alford  says  it  is  literally,  '  Let  it  not  be,'  and  Young  so  renders  it. 
The  exclamation  must  obviously  be  taken  as  a  criticism  upon  the 
parable  in  its  entirety,  not  as  a  deprecation  of  the  vengeance  inflicted 
upon  the  murderers,  or  as  applying  only  to  tlie  closing  words,  'ond 
will  give  the  vineyard  unto  others.'  The  hearers  themselves  bad 
suggested  the  ending  of  the  parable,  which  disclosed  such  a  picture 
of  injustice,  cruelty,  folly,  and  reckless  wickedness,  that  they  might 
well  deem  it  too  highly  coloured,  and  expostulate  against  its  being- 
taken  as  representative  of  anything  in  the  national  history.  '  Li- 
credible  !  Impossible  !  God  forbid  !  Let  it  not  be  ! '  Were  they 
right  ?  Was  Jesus  wrong  ?  Had  he  drawn  a  fiction,  or  liad  he 
described  a  fact  ?  He  was  terribly  in  earnest.  He  fixed  his  eye-^ 
upon  them,  and  bade  them  explain,  if  they  could,  from  their 
optimistic  point  of  view,  a  certain  passage  in  the  Scriptures.  '  But  .,  1^ 
lie  looked  upon  them,  and  said,  What  then  is  this  that  is  written, 

The  stone  which  the  builders  rejected, 

The  same  was  made  the  head  of  the  corner  ?  ' 
Did  not  that  indicate  an  antagonism  between  the  design  of  God  and 
the  ideas  of  those  who  claimed  to  be  the  appointed  leaders  in  carrying 
out  that  design  ?  The  parable  represented  only  too  truly  the  in- 
justice and  inhumanity  which  have  ever  been  disgraceful  features  in 
the  development  of  religious  intolerance  and  persecution.  But 
putting  all  that  aside,  dismissing  the  simile  which  dealt  with  human 
nature  thus  perverted  and  briitalised,  and  taking  up  the  figures  of  a 
stone  and  a  building  instead  of  a  householder  and  husbandmen,  the 
same  lesson  was  conveyed.  There  must  come  to  pass  an  utter 
reversal  of  human  plans  and  purposes,  the  strength  and  beauty  of 
the  heavenly  edifice  being  made  to  depend  upon  that  corner-stone 
which  the  builders  ignominiously  rejected.  Still  keeping  to  the 
metaphor  of  a  stoue,  Jesus  added  :  '  Every  one  that  ftilleth  on  that  ■.,  '• 
stone  shall  be  broken  to  pieces  ;  but  on  whomsoever  it  shall  fall,  it 
will  scatter  him  as  dust.'  The  Authorised  Version  stands:  'Who- 
soever shall  fall  upon  that  stone  shall  be  broken  ;  but  on  whomsoever 
it  shall  fall,  it  will  grind  him  to  powder.'  Tlie  Avord  '  broken '  by 
itself  might  be  taken  to  signify  bruised,  more  or  less  injured,  but  the 


288  THE    KING    AND    THE    KINCWOM:  [part  ii. 

Revisers  have  made  it  equivalent  to  '  dashed  to  pieces.'  Tiscliendorf 
has  :  '  Every  one  that  fell  upon  that  stone  Avill  be  broken  ;  but  on 
whomsoever  it  shall  fall,  it  will  grind  him  to  powder.'  Young- 
renders  :  '  Every  one  who  hath  fallen  on  that  stone  shall  be  broken, 
and  on  whom  it  may  fall,  it  will  crush  him  to  pieces.'  The  promi- 
nent idea,  brought  out  by  Jesus  with  all  the  force  of  which  language 
is  capable,  is  the  utter  futility  of  human  efforts  and  intentions  wheu 
opposed  to  the  divine  will.  Matthew  and  Mark  represent  an  addi- 
tional verse  of  the  Psalm  to  have  been  quoted,  leading  our  thoughts 
12  Mark  10,  in  the  same  direction.  '  Have  ye  not  read  even  this  Scripture  ; 
"  The  stone  which  the  builders  rejected, 

The  same  was  made  the  head  of  the  corner  : 

This  was  from  the  Lord, 

And  it  was  marvellous  in  our  eyes  ? ' 

21  Mat.  A-2         Matthew  prefaces  the  quotation  with  the  words  :  '  Jesus  said  unto 

them,  Did  ye  never  read  in  the  Scriptures  .  .  .'  The  original  passage 
stands  as  follows : 
1  hs I's. -j-j, -23  'The  stone  which  the  builders  rejected 

Is  become  the  head  of  the  corner. 

This  is  the  Lord's  doing  ; 

It  is  marvellous  in  our  eyes.' 
Matthew  alone  records  the  following  additional  words  of  Jesus  : 
'21  Mat.  43  '  Therefore  I  say  unto  you.  The  kingdom  of  God  shall  be  taken  away 
from  you,  and  shall  be  given  to  a  nation  bringing  forth  the  fruits 
,,  -i-t  thereof.'  After  which  comes  the  verse :  '  And  he  that  falleth 
on  this  stone  shall  be  broken  to  pieces  :  but  on  whomsoever  it 
shall  fall,  it  will  scatter  him  as  dust.'  The  Revisers  note  that  '  some 
ancient  authorities  omit '  this  last  verse.  Lachmann  and  Tischendorf 
omit  it.  It  is  enough  that  we  have  it  standing  unquestioned  in 
Luke.  From  the  parable  of  the  vineyard  Jesus  drew  an  inference  : 
that  the  kingdom  of  God  should  be  taken  from  the  unbelieving  Jews, 
and  given  to  others.  From  the  simile  of  the  stone  he  drew  another 
inference  :  that  opposition  to  the  divine  will  must  be  hurtful  or  fatal 
to  the  opposers.  These  two  lessons  may  be  merged  into  one  :  the 
necessity  of  submitting  to  the  will  and  purposes  of  God.  Jesus  Avas 
not  careful  what  parable  he  took  up  to  enforce  that  truth  :  the  stone 
and  the  builders  would  do  just  as  well  as  the  vineyard  and  the 
husbandmen.  To  deduce  from  either  parable  any  conclusion  as  to 
the  mode  and  method  of  the  divine  judgments,  is  to  overlook  the 
spirit  and  misread  the  letter  of  the  teaching  of  Jesus.  None  can  be 
so  foolish  as  to  suppose  that  the  final  doom  of  the  builders  is  to  be 
mutilated  or  crushed  to  death  in  any  literal  sense.  As  little  are  we 
justified  in  rigorously  interpreting  the  words  'he  will  miserably 
destroy  those  miserable  men,'  even  were  they  the  words  of  Jesus, 
which  they  are  not.     In  another   parable  the  catastrophe   is   thus. 

22  Mat.  7      described  :  '  But  the  king  was  wroth  ;  and  he  sent  his  armies,  and 

destroyed  those  murderers,  and  burned  their  city.'  Dean  Alford 
scrupled  not  to  add  as  an  explanatory  note  :  '  the  Roman  armies.' 
Here  also  he  introduces  the  same  idea,  saying  :  '  We  may  observe 
that  our  Lord  here  makes  wJmi  the  Lord  therefore  of  the  vineyard 
cometh  coincide  with  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  which  is  incon- 
testably  the  overthrow  of  the  wicked  husbandmen.  This  passage 
forms  therefore  an  important  key  to  our  Lord's  proijhecies,  and  a 


I'AKT  II.]         A    STUDY    OF    THE    FUUll    GOHI'KLK. 


28!) 


decisive  justification  for  those  who,  like  myself,  iifmly  hold  that  Utr 
coming  of  the  Lord  is  in  many  places  to  be  identified,  primarily,  with 
that  overthrow.'  That  is  certainly  a  deduction  from  the  parable 
which  Jesus  did  not  bring  before  his  hearers.  '  The  kingdom  of  God 
shall  be  taken  away  fi-om  you  : '  did  the  Romans  take  away  the 
kingdom  of  God  from  the  Jews  ?  '  And  shall  be  given  to  a  nation 
bringing  i'orth  the  fruits  thereof.'  What  had  the  destruction  of 
Jerusalem  to  do  with  that  ?  To  call  that  frightful  e\ent  the  coming 
(if  the  Lord  Jesus,  is  to  misconceive  utterly  the  nature  of  his  king- 
dom, and  the  drifc  of  his  teachings. 

Tiie  chief  priests  and  the  Pharisees  could  not  fail  to  perceive  that 
the  wicked  husbandmen  and  the  foolish  builders  were  designed  to 
represent  themselves.  'And  when  the  chief  priests  and  the  Pharisees 
heard  his  parables,  they  perceived  that  he  spake  of  them.'  They 
decided  to  arrest  him  without  any  further  delay.  '  And  the  scribes 
and  the  chief  priests  sought  to  lay  hands  on  him  in  that  very  hour.' 
But  their  dread  of  the  populace  caused  them  to  defer  their  purpose. 
'  And  when  they  sought  to  lay  hold  on  him,  they  feared  the  multi- 
tudes, because  they  took  him  for  a  prophet.'  Luke  gives  the  same 
explanation.  'And  they  feared  the  people:  for  they  perceived  that 
he  spake  this  j)arable  against  them.'  Mark  adds  that  they  withdrew 
from  the  presence  of  Jesus.  'And  they  sought  to  lay  hold  on  him  ; 
and  they  feared  the  multitude  ;  for  they  perceived  that  he  spake  the 
parable  against  them  :  and  they  left  him,  and  went  away.' 

It  is  interesting  to  consider  the  skeleton  of  the  above  narrative  as 
it  is  disclosed  by  the  authors  of '  The  Common  Tradition.'  In  the 
fourth  column  are  the  words  common  to  the  three  evangelists,  and  in 
the  first,  second  and  third  columns  the  expansions  of  Matthew,  Mark 
and  Luke  respectively. 


•21  Mat.  4,3 

20  Lnko  V.I 

21  Mat.  4C; 
•20  Luke  in 
1^2  Mark  12 


Expansion  of  Matthe-w. 

Expansion  of  Mark. 

Expansion  of  Luke. 

Common  to  tlie 
Tliree  Evangelists. 

Hour  anothei- 

1 
And  he  began  to  speak 

And  he  began  to  speak 

parable               1 

unto  tlicm  in 

unto  the  people  this 

There  was 

1 
a  man                2 

thatwasahouscholder, 

planted      a    3 

whicii 

vineyard 

and  set  a  hedge  about 

and  set  a  hedge  about 

and  let  it  out    4 

it,    and     digged    a 

it,  and  digged  a  pit 

to  hu.sband- 

winepress  in  it,  and 

for  the  winepress  in 

men,      and 

built  a  tower 

it,  and  built  a  tower 

went     into 

another 

country 

and  when  the 

and  at  the 

and  at  the 

season                5 

of    the     fruits    drew 

he  sent              6 

near 

liis 

u  servant 

a  servant 

servants      to     7 
the       hus- 
bandmen 

to  receive  his 

that  he  might  receive 

that  they  should  give 

fruits                 8 

from  the  husband-  j 

him  of 

men  of                        i 

and    the  husbandmen 

of  the  \-inevard.  And  i 

of  the  vineyard  ;   but 

beat                   9 

took    his    servants,    they  took  him,  and 

the  husbandmen 

and 

1 

290 


THE    KING    AND    THE    KINGDOM: 


[part   II. 


Expansion  of  Matthew. 


one,  and  killed  an- 
other, and  stoned 
another  Again  he 
sent  others 

more  than  the  first 

they  did  unto  them  in 
like  manner.  But 
afterwards  he  sent 
unto  them  his  son, 
savins' 


him,  and  sent  him 
away  emjity.  And 
again  he  sent  unto 
them  another 


him  they  wounded 
in  the  head,  and 
handled  shamefully. 
And  he  sent  another 
and  him  they  killed: 
and  many  others, 
heating  some,  and 
killing  some.  He 
had  yet  one,  a  be- 
loved son  :  he  sent 
him  last  unto  them, 
saying 


Exiiansioii  of  Luke. 


him,  and  sent  him 
away  empty.  Again 
he  sent  other 


him  also  they  beat, 
and  handled  him 
shamefully,  and 
sent  him  away 
emptj'.  And  lie 
sent  yet  a  third : 
and  him  also  they 
wounded,  and  cast 
him  forth.  And  the 
lord  of  the  vineyard 
said,  "What  shall  I 
do  ?  I  will  send  my 
beloved  son ;  it  mav 
be 

when 


when    they    saw    the    said     among     them-  '  saw    him,  they  rea- 


son,    said      among 
themselves 


and  take  his 
took  him,  and 


and 

him.    "When  therefore 

shall  come 

unto  those 
The  say  unto  him 
he  will  miserably 
those  miserable  men 
let  out 


selves 


and 

"took  him,  and 


and 

therefore 


the 

he  will  come  and 

give 


soned  one  with  an- 
other, saying 


that 

may  be  ours 


and 
therefore 


these 

he  will  come  and 


husbandmen,     which  j  have  ye  not  read  even  ,  And  when  they  heard 
shall    render     him  ]  this  1     it,   they   said,    God 


the  fruits  in  their 
seasons.  Jesus  saith 
imto  them,  Did  ye 
never  read  in 


forbid.  But  he 
looked  upon  them, 
and  said.  What  then 
is  this  that  is  written 


Common  to  the 
Three  Evangelists. 


sei'vants 


and 


10 


11 


they  will  re-  12 
verence  my 
son.     But 


the  husband- 
men 

this    is    the  lo 
heir 

let     us    kill  14 
him 


inheritance      lo 

and  they  Ifi 

cast     him      1 7 
forth  out  of 
the      vine- 
yard 

killed  18 

the  lord  of  the  19 
vineyard 

what  will  he  20 
do 

husbandmen  21 

he  will  22 

destroy  23 

and  will  24 

the  vineyard  25 
unto  other 

the  scriptures  26' 


The  stone 
which  the 
builders  re- 
jected the 
same  was 
made  the 
head  of  the 


PART  II.]         A    STUDY    OF    THE    FOUR    GOSPFLS. 


2!)1 


Expansion  of  Matthew. 


This  was  from  the 
Lord,  and  it  is  mar- 
vellous in  our  eyes. 
Therefore  say  I  unto 
you,  The  kingdom 
of  God  shall  be 
taken  away  from 
you,  and  sliall  be 
given  to  a  |  nation 
bringing  forth  the 
fruits  tliereof.  And 
lie  that  falleth  on 
this  stone  shall  be 
broken  to  pieces : 
but  on  whomsoever 
it  shall  fall,  it  will 
scatter  him  as  dust. 


Expansion  of  Mark. 


Expansion  of  Luke. 


I    Common  to  tlic 
iThree  Evangelists 


This    was    from    the    Every  one  that  falleth 


Lord,  and  it  is  mar 
vellous  in  our  eyes 


on  that  stone  shall 
be  broken  to  pieces  ; 
but  on  whomsoever 
it  shall  fall,  it  will 
scatter  him  as  dust. 


And   when   the    chief 
priests      and      the 
Piiarisecs  heard  his 

parables  they 
perceived  " 
that 

28 

he  spake  of 

he  spake  against 

he  spake  against 

them 
and 

29 
30 

when  they 

they 

the   scribes   and 
chief  priests 

the 

sought 

31 

to  lay  hold  on 

to  lay  hold  on 

to  lay  hands  on 

him 
feared 

they 

32 

the     multitudes, 
cause  they  took 
for  a  prophet. 

be- 
him 

the  multitude 

the  people 

33 

The  fourth  column,  which  is  common  to  the  three  evangelists, 
<:'omi3rises  the  leading  words  of  the  discourse,  as  if  they  had  been 
noted  down  hastily  whilst  it  was  delivered,  for  the  purpose  of  aiding 
the  memory  in  recording  it  subsequently.  The  suggestion  is  inerely 
tentative,  but  assuming  the  original  rough  draft  to  have  been 
Matthew's,  the  first  column  shows  how  he  dealt  with  it,  his  recollec- 
tion enabling  him  to  fill  up  the  slight  sketch  in  that  way. 

The  differences  between  the  evangelists  may  be  analysed  as 
follows  : 

(a)  Wordings  in  Mark  and  Luke  differing  from  those  in  Matthew, 

but  so  similar  in  Mark  and  Luke  as  to  indicate  that  they 
copied  from  a  document  common  to  both  :  1,  10,  12. 

(b)  Phrases  in  Matthew  only,  indicating  that  he  gives  the  actual 
words  of  Jesus  :  1,  3,  11,  20,  2o,  24. 

'(c)  Verbal  differences,  insertions  or  omissions,  apparently  due  to 
the  compilers  :  1  Matthew  and  Luke  ;  -t  Matthew  and  Luke  ; 
5.  G,  Matthew  and  Luke  ;  8,  0,  Matthew  and  Luke  {  13,  14, 
Luke ;  17,  Luke ;  25,  Matthew  and  Luke ;  29,  31,  32, 
Luke  ;  33. 

■(d)  Verbal  differences,  additions,  or  omissions,  indicating  varia- 
tions in  the  original  records  :  16  Luke  ;  23,  26  Mark  and 
Luke  ;  28  Mark  and  Luke. 

■(e)  Plural  in  Matthew,  but  singular  in  Mark  or  Luke,  or  in  both, 
or  vice  versa :  servants,  servant  7,  8,  9  j  also  multitudes, 
multitude,  33. 

V  2 


292  THE   KING    AND    THE    KINGDOM:  [part  ii 

The  theory  that  Matthew's  was  the  original  record  is  only  put 
forth  suggestively.  These  comparisons  tend,  however,  to  confirm  it. 
The  above  method  of  investigation  is  full  of  interest,  and,  in  compe- 
tent hands,  would  be  fruitful  of  reliable  conclusions.  The  doctrine 
of  '  inspiration '  has  stood  terribly  in  the  way  of  any  such  inde- 
pendent study  of  the  gospels.  One  hour's  patient  labour  in  this 
direction  would  suffice  to  dissipate  erroneous  ideas  cherished  by 
inspirationists  ;  and  a  methodical  and  painstaking  comparison  of  the 
evangelistic  narratives  on  this  basis,  which  is  that  adopted  by  the 
authors  of  '  The  Common  Tradition,'  would  be  worth  more  than  a 
multitude  of  '  Harmonies,'  and  do  as  much  good  as  the  doctrine  of 
'  inspiration  '  has  done  harm. 

Mat.  1  Jesus  continued  to  address  the  people  in  parabolic  form.     '  And 

Jesus  answered  and  spake  again  in  parables  unto  them,  saying  .  .  ' 
His  opening  words  indicate  that  he  intended  to  illustrate  something 
relating  to  that  '  reign  of  the  heavens,'  the  establishment  of  which 
was  the  object  of  his  life.     Tlie  ruler  of  a  certain  kingdom  is  repre- 

„  -1  sented  as  decreeing  festivities  on  account  of  his  son's  marriage.  '  The 
kingdom  of  heaven  is  likened  unto  a  certain  king,  w^iich  made  a 
marriage  feast  for  his  son.'  Such  an  event  lies  outside  the  routine  of 
daily  life,  and  is  an  occasion  for  special  rejoicing.  Invitations  to  the 
banquet  ■were  issued,  and  in  due  time  the  cliosen  guests  were  sum- 

»  ■^  moned  to  attend.  '  And  sent  forth  his  servants  (Gr.  bondservants) 
to  call  them  that  were  bidden  to  the  marriage  feast.'  Strange  to  say, 
they  cared  nothing  about  the  banquet,  and  showed  not  the   least 

,.  :«  respect  to  the  king  or  the  king's  son.  'And  they  would  not  come.* 
Other  servants  were  then  despatched  to  repeat  and  enforce  the  former 

,.  4  message.  '  Again  he  sent  forth  other  servants  (Gr.  bondservants), 
saying.  Tell  them  that  are  bidden.  Behold,  I  have  made  ready  my 
dinner  :  my  oxen  and  my  fatlings  are  killed,  and  all  things  are  ready  : 
come  to  the  marriage  feast.'  In  ^■ain  did  they  explain,  invite, 
expostulate.  Nobody  paid  the  least  attention  to  the  message.  The 
expected  guests  went  ofFin  various  directions,  and  occupied  themselves 
in  difl'erent  ways  :  they  would  go  anywhere  rather  than  to  the  king's 

„    •'">      palace,  and  do  anything  rather  than  sit  down  at  his  banquet.     '  But 
they  made  light  of  it,  and  went  their  Avays,  one  to  his  ow'n  farm, 
another  to  his  merchandise.'     Instead  of  'they  made  light  of  it,' 
Young   renders,    '  they   having    disregarded  it,''   Tischendorf,  '  they 
neglected,'  and  'The  Englishman's  Greek  New  Testament,'  'they  being 
negligent   of   (it).'      They  w'ere  simply  indifferent,  wrapped  up  in 
thoughts  of  other  things,  preferring  to  follow  their  daily  round  of 
labour  rather  than  break  the  monotony  of  the  life  to  which  they  were 
accustomed,  even  for  the  sake  of  realising  the  brightness,  the  rejoicing, 
the  refinement  of  a  king's  court.     It  does  not  appear  that  they  had 
professed  to  accept  the  invitation,  or  ever  for  a  moment  intended  to. 
avail  themselves  of  it.     From  first  to  last  they  held  aloof,  feeling  no 
concern  in  the  royal  plans  and  purposes,  and  esteeming  it  no  honour 
and  no  privilege  to  share  therein.     Some  Avent  beyond  mere  cool 
contempt  and  disrespect,  and  laid   violent   hands  upon    the  king's 
„    r.      servants,  maltreated  them,  even  murdered  them.     '  And  the  rest  laid 
hold  on  his  servants  (Gr.  bondservants),  and  entreated  them  shame- 
fully, and  killed  them.'     It  is  altogether  a  strange  story.    Who  coula 
have  expected  that  the  good  intentions  of  the  king,  his  courteous 


TART  II.]         A    STUDY    OF    THE    FOUR    GOSPELS.  2d:i 

invitation,  his  costly  preparations,  his  patient  entreaties,  would  be 
met  in  snch  a  sjjirit  of  utter  indiffenince  and  hostihty,  and  lead  to  so 
lamentable  a  result  ?  The  ,<)-ood\vill  of  the  monarch  beinp;  thus 
scorned,  wasi'cplaeed  by  indio-nation  ajiainst  the  murderers.  Justice 
demanded  that  his  ser\ants  should  be  a\'enged,  and  stern  retribution 
was  forthwith  exacted.  '  But  the  kinii-  was  wroth  ;  and  he  sent  his  : 
armies,  and  destroyed  those  murderers,  and  burned  their  city.'  The 
Authorised  Version  has,  after  '  but,'  '  when  the  king  heard  f/ipreof; ' 
these  words  arc  omitted  by  the  Revisers,  not  being  in  the  two  oldest 
MSS.      In  verses  2,  :>  and  4  Young-  uses  the  plural,  '  marriage- feasts.' 

In  interpreting  the  parable  the  following  points  are  to  be  noted : 
(1)  The  invitation  was  not  universal.  Certain  persons  were  bidden 
to  the  wedding  feast,  and  they  only  were  called  upon  to  attend.  (2) 
Attendance  involved  the  relinquishment  for  the  time  being  of  worldly 
aflPairs.  (o)  The  bulk  of  the  invited  guests  preferred  their  own  busi- 
ness to  the  king's  pleasure,  and  continued  to  conduct  their  affairs  as 
though  they  had  never  been  iuN'ited.  (4)  The  rest  of  the  invited 
guests  were  not  simply  indifferent  to  the  invitation,  but  hostile  to  it, 
and  took  upon  them  to  persecute  the  king's  messengers.  (5)  Only 
these  last,  the  murderers,  are  represented  as  being  punished. 

The  parable  is  started  as  an  illustration  of  '  the  kingdom  of  heaven.' 
<-)nly  disciples  of  Jesus,  true  followers  prepared  to  forsake  all  things 
for  his  cause,  could  enter  therein.  He  could  not  soften  his  hard 
terms  of  admission,  and  when  these  were  recognised  many, — how  many 
who  can  tell  ? — who  heard  his  call  and  were  ready  enough  to  answer, 
*  Lord,  Lord,'  were  not  prepared  to  do  the  things  he  said.  They 
kept  on  according  to  the  course  of  this  world,  not  less  diligent 
in  earthly  business  than  before,  or  in  any  wise  blameable  therein.  A 
call  from  above  had  come,  which  they  had  disregarded  :  it  was  their 
loss,  the  gospel's  loss.  The  parable  goes  no  further  than  that  as 
regards  these  men.  But  there  were  others,  who  were  not  merely 
impassive  to  the  call,  but  antagonistic  to  it,  and  to  those  by  whom  it 
was  proclaimed.  AYhat  moved  them  to  this  ?  Nothing  but  the 
invitation  itself  and  the  persistence  with  which  it  was  urged.  They 
were  men  so  bent  on  having  things  go  on  in  the  old  course,  so 
determined  to  resent  any  new  point  of  departure  in  thought  and 
practice,  that  they  scrupled  not  to  treat  as  enemies  and  criminals 
those  who  called  them  and  others  to  higher  aims  and  nobler  duties. 
The  chief  priests  and  Pharisees,  who  w'ere  even  then  taking  counsel 
against  Jesus  to  put  him  to  death,  stand  in  this  category  ;  so  do  they 
who  afterwards  persecuted  and  sought  to  kill  his  apostles  ;  so  do  all 
who  in  bygone  times  have  dragged  to  prison  and  the  stake  those  who 
proclaimed  religious  opinions  at  variance  with  their  own  ;  so  do  they 
who  now  denounce  pains  and  penalties  for  nonconformity,  and  in 
their  poor,  puny  fashion  rake  up  again  the  dying  embers  of  religious 
intolerance  and  persecution.  They  are  all  of  the  same  spirit,  which 
leads  up  to  murder  as  its  extreme,  and  has  various  intermediate 
degrees  of  *  shameful  handling.'  Murder  is  murder,  however  much 
men  may  seek  to  justify  it  as  a  necessity  in  some  cause  which  they 
deem  sacred.  'Whosoever  killeth  you  shall  think  that  he  offereth  i 
service  unto  Grod.'  How  often  has  that  prophecy  of  Jesus  come 
true  !  Taught  by  him,  we  may  boldly  apply  to  this  matter  the 
apostle's  words  :  '  We  know  that  the  judgement  of  God  is  according  : 


294  THE    KING    AND    THE    KINGDOM:  [part  ii 

to  truth  against  them  that  practise  such  things.'     Let  us  not  restrict 
to  one   particular  event   that   just  judgment  of   God  which  Jesus 
indicated  by  the  words  :  '  But  the  king  was  wroth  :  and  he  sent  his 
armies,  and  destroyed  those  murderers,  and  burned  their  city.'     It  is 
here    that   Alford    inserted    his    explanatory  note  :    '  The  Roman 
armies.'     That  narrows  the  application  of  the  parable  down  to  one 
specific  incident  in  Jewish  national  history.     True,  armies  did  come, 
and  Jerusalem  was  besieged  and  burnt,  and  so  far  there  is  a  resem- 
blance between  that  catastrophe  and  the  climax  of  the  parable.     But 
that   did  not   happen  until   nearly  40  years   after   the  words  were 
spoken,  by  which  time  many  of  the  persecutors  had  died  naturally. 
The  theory  of  Alford  is  not  without  its  difficulties.     It  assumes  the 
king  in  the  parable  to  be  God  ;   and  as  he  sent  forth  his  armies,  it 
follows  that  the  Eomans  were  God's  soldiers.     That  were  hard  to 
belieye,  if  not  incredible.     Certainly  they  were  not  soldiers  of  Jesus, 
for  the  weapons  of  his  warfare  were  not  carnal  but  spiritual,  and  he 
foresaAV  and  sought  to  avert  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  and  wept 
at  the  non-success  of  his  efforts.     There  is  a  strange  inconsistency  in 
supposing,  as  Alford  does,  that  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  was  the 
coming  of  Jesus.     Moreover,  the  Romans  spared  none,  so  that  the 
adoption  of  Alford's  view  leads  to  the  conclusion  that  the  neglecters 
of   the   invitation  suffered  together  with   the   murderers,  which  is 
contrary  to  the  parable.     Jesus  therein  did  not  profess  to  foretell  the 
nation's  future,  but  to  illustrate  '  the  kingdom  of  heaven,'  and  the 
application  of  the  parable  is  general  and  universal,  not  individual 
and  local.     Destruction  is  the  doom  of  persecutors  who  go  to  the 
length  of  murder,  and  not  a  trace  will  be  left  on  earth  of  all  their 
plans  and  labours.     The  armies  of  the  Lord  of  hosts  are  invisible  to 
mortal  eyes  ;  it  is  enough  for  us  to  know  that  their  work  of  retribution 
is  sure,  irresistible,  inevitable.     Not  once  or  twice,  not  here  or  there, 
but  always  and  everywhere,  the  saying  is  fulfilled:    'He  sent  his. 
armies,  and  destroyed  those  murderers,  and  burned  their  city.'     The 
apostle  Paul  represented  the  judgment  of  God  under  the  same  figure 
:^  i.  Cor.  \2.,_  of  burning  and  destruction  :  '  Each  man's  work,  of  what  sort  it  is, 
the  fire  shall  prove  it.    .    .    .    If  any  man  destroyeth  the  temple  of 
God,  him  shall  God  destroy  ;    for  the  temple  of  God  is  holy,  which 
temple  ye  are.'     Human  life  is  sacred,  and  woe  to  them  who  destroy 
it  in  their  hatred  of  the  truth  of  God  enshrined  therein.     It  is  a 
remarkable  fact  that  all  the  denunciations  of  Jesus  were  directed 
against  hatred  of  truth  and  light.     He  did  not  attack  the  common 
vices  of  mankind,  the  grossness  of  immorality  and  wrong-doing  in  its 
multitudinous  forms.     His  chief  concern  was  about  the  promulgation 
of  truth  and  the  overthrow  of  error.     With  publicans  and  sinners  he 
dealt  lightly  ;  not  so  with  opposing  scribes,  priests  and  Pharisees. 
*  Woe  unto  you,  scribes  and  Pharisees,  hypocrites  I '     The  same  tone" 
and  direction  of   thought  are  observable   in   the   parables.      Jesus 
presented   repentant   sinners   under   the   figures   of  the   lost   sheep 
recovered,  the  lost  coin  found,  the  prodigal  returned  and  welcomed. 
Not  blame,  aversion,  condemnation,  but  pity,  hope,  repentance,  for- 
giveness and  rejoicing,  were  prominent  in  his  treatment  of  the  frail 
and  sinful.     But  the  parables  directed  against  the  chief  priests  and 
Pharisees  were  reprobatory  and  threatening.      '  He  will  come  and 
destroy  those  husbandmen,  and  will  give  the  vineyard  to  others.' 


I'.VKT  II.]  A    STUDY    OF    THE    FOUR    GOSPELS.  295 

'  He  sent  his  armies,  and  destroyed  those  murderers,  and  burned 
their  city.'  Doubtless  there  were  c:ood  reasons  in  the  mind  of  Jesus 
for  this  difference  of  treatment.  Sins  o1'  the  body  bring  their  own 
punishment,  and  stamp  witli  degradation  those  wlio  commit  them. 
Society  has  taken  upon  itself  the  castigation  of  wickedness  in  a 
variety  of  forms.  But  against  spiritual  pride  and  rancour,  opposition 
to  light  and  truth,  and  the  self-complacency  which  exalts  itself  and 
despises  others,  there  is  no  appeal  to  any  human  tribunal.  These 
are  vices  of  the  upper  class,  of  those  who  have  the  making  of  laws 
and  the  wielding  of  judicial  powers.  desus  came  perforce  into 
conflict  with  these  men  :  they  could  not  crush  his  spirit,  but  they 
took  his  life,  and  afterwards  sought  to  crush  his  followers.  The 
ai>ostle  Paul  describes  the  nature  of  this  strife  :  '  Our  wrestling  is  not  c  Epi 
against  flesh  and  blood,  but  against  the  principalities,  against  the 
l)0wers,  against  the  world-rulers  of  this  darkness,  against  the  spiritual 
hosts  of  wickedness  in  the  heavenly  lAaces.'  Young  renders  this  : 
•  We  lune  not  the  wrestling  against  blood  and  flesh,  but  against  the 
principalities,  against  the  powers'  (authorities — Eng.  G.  N.  T.), 
'  against  the  world-rulers  of  the  darkness  of  this  age,  against  the 
spiritual  things  of  the  evil  in  the  heavenly  places.'  Luther's  version 
carries  the  same  meaning  :  '  Denn  wir  haben  nicht  mit  Fleisch  und 
Bhit  zu  kiimpfen,  sondern  mit  Fiirsten  und  Gewaitigen,  nemlich 
mit  den  Herren  der  Welt,  die  in  der  Finsterniss  dieser  Welt 
herrschen,  mit  den  biisen  Geistern  unter  dem  Himmel.'  '  For  we 
have  not  to  fight  with  flesh  and  blood,  but  with  the  princes  and 
mighty  ones,  namely  with  the  lords  of  the  world,  who  rule  in  the 
darkness  of  this  world,  with  the  evil  spirits  under  heaven.'  Take 
Count  Leon  Tolstoi's  view  of  the  Christian  doctrine  and  warfare, 
and  this  passage  will  no  longer  be  so  inapplicable,  so  incomprehensible, 
or  so  vapid  and  well-nigh  meaningless  as  it  has  hitherto  seemed. 
The  apostle's  exhortation  has  a  definite  application,  and  if  men  fail 
to  find  it,  it  is  because  they  mistake  the  nature  and  reality  of  the 
(■hristian  warfare,  and  ha\e  wandered  into  a  realm  of  unpractical 
imagination. 

The  parable  does  not  end  with  the  destruction  of  the  murderers, 
but  branches  ont  in  another  direction.  'Then  saith  he  to  hiso^j, 
servants  (Gr.  bondservants),  The  wedding  is  ready,  but  they  that 
were  bidden  were  not  worthy.'  Young  and  Tischendorf  render 
'  wedding  '  as  '  marriage  feast : '  the  word  in  the  original  is  the  same 
as  before.  Unwillingness,  as  well  as  opposition,  is  represented  as 
indicating  unworthiness.  The  king  now  commands  his  servants  to 
seek  for  guests,  no  matter  of  what  class  or  from  what  quarter.  '  Go 
ye  therefore  unto  the  partings  of  the  highways,  and  as  many  as  ye 
shall  find,  bid  to  the  marriage  feast.'  The  Revisers  have  altered 
'  highways '  to  '  partings  of  "the  highways,'  which  is  rendered  by 
Y'oung  and  Tischendorf  '  cross-ways,'  and  by  the  '  Englishman's 
( Ireek  New  Testament '  '  thoroughfares  of  the  highways.'  The  utmost 
publicity  would  thus  be  given  to  the  invitation.  This  resulted,  as 
was  to  be  expected,  in  the  collection  of  a  very  motley  assemblage.  No 
restrictions  were  imposed,  all  classes  and  characters  being  welcomed. 
'  And  those  servants  (Gr.  bondservants)  went  out  into  the  highways, 
and  gathered  together  all  as  many  as  they  found,  both  bad  and  good.' 
The  Authorised  Version  continues  :  'and  the  wedding  was  furnished 


296  TEE   KING    AXI)    THE    KINGDOM:  [part  ii. 

■2-2  Mat.  10     with  guests,'  which  the  Revisers  have  rendered,  '  and  the  wedding 
was   hlled   with    guests,'    Tischeudorf,   foHowing   another   reading, 
renders,  '  and  the  bride-chamber  was  filled  with  guests  ; '  Young  : 
'  and  the  marriage-feast  apartment  Avas  filled  with  guests.'     Luther 
also  here  drops  the  word  '  Hochzeit,'  '  wedding,'  and  chooses  another 
word :  '  und  die  Tische  wurden  alle  voll,'  '  and  the  tables  were  all 
filled.'     From  first  to  last  the  parable  puts  a  limitation  upon  the 
number  of  the  guests.     Originally  a  certain  selection  was  made  :  '  call 
them  that  were  bidden  to  the  marriage  feast.'     Now  the  room  is 
represented  as  being  filled  up.     This  feature  of  the  parable  has  its 
significance,  and  must    not    be  disregarded.     Alford  assumes  those 
first  invited  to  be  '  the  Jewish  people,'  and  he  talks  of  '  the  opening 
of  the  Feast  to  the  Gentiles.'     But  the  very  structure  of  the  parable 
forbids  the  idea  of  universality.     To  suppose  a  whole  nation  invited 
to  assemble  in  a  bridal-feast  apartment  is  an  absurdity.     Such  a  mode 
of  interpretation  is  wholly  inconsistent  with  the  aspect  under  which 
Jesus  here  presents  '  the  kingdom  of  heaven.'     Only  through  disciple- 
ship  to  him  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven  attainable,  and  we  know  that 
he  intentionally  limited  the  number  of  disciples,  and  warned  all  men 
not  to  profess  themselves  as  such,  unless  they  had  first  counted  the 
cost  and  resolved  to  hate  all  things  else,  even  their  own  lives,  for  the 
gospel's  sake.     That   every  man  should  become  a  disciple  was  no 
more  to  be  expected  or  desired,  than  that  every  house  should  become 
a  church  of  chapel.     '  Ye  are  the  light  of  the  world  : '  if  all  could 
claim  that  ihuminating  influence,  there  would  be  no  world  outside  for 
them  to  enlighten.     '  A  city  set  on  a  hill  cannot  be  hid  : '  city- 
crowned  hills  are  exceptional :  dwellers  in  the  plains  below  must  look 
and  climb  upwards   to   them.     A  sprinkle  of  leaven  put  in  three 
bushels  of  meal,  till  the  whole  should  become  lea\"ened ;  a  tiny  grain 
of  mustard  seed,  which  must  be  sown  and  grow  up  gradually  into  a 
tree  ;  an  assembly  of  wedding  guests,  favoured  individuals,  for  each 
one  of  wliom  admitted,  a  thousand  of  their  countrymen  must  have 
been,  as  a  matter  of  course,  excluded  :  such  were  the  similes  whereby 
Jesus  represented  the  kingdom  of  heaven.     At  first  the  world  received 
it  but  in  embryo  ;  poor  and  puny  has  been  its  development  during 
eighteen  centuries.     Yet  Christianity  was  no  abortion  :  it  was  fairly 
born  into  the  world  in  the  first  century.     Where  is  it,  what  is  it  now  ? 
As  an  accepted  creed,  as  a  system  of  doctrine,  it  is  everywhere,  and 
professes  itself  everything.     But  as  '  the  kingdom  of  heaven  '  among 
mankind,  it  has  no  existence.     There  is  no  '  reign  of  the  heavens' 
yet  in  this  world,  nor  can  it  ever  be  established  except  through  the 
method  devised  by  Jesus.     Not  by  an  assumption  on  the  part  of  the 
clergy  that  they  have  been  commissioned  and  empowered  to  admit 
every  infant  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven  by  a  supernatural  act  of 
grace  in  the  sacrament  of  baptism,  and  then  preaching  the  duty  of 
everyone  to  live  up  to  that  high  privilege  and  profession,  can  the 
kingdom  of  heaven  be  set  up  in  our  midst.     That  is  a  plan  of  human 
invention,  an  error,  a  fiction,  a  rotten  foundation  upholding  a  sham 
Christianity.     The  scheme  of  .Jesus  is  the  very  reverse  of  that.    To  the 
world  at  large  his  call  is,  from  its  very  nature,  impracticable.     Never- 
theless he  would  have   men   follow  it  ;  not  all — that  cannot    l)e — 
but  those  v.-ho  deliberately  resolve  to  become  his  disciples  and  to  seek 
first  the  kingdom  of  God  and  his  righteousness.     That  profession 


i-AUT  ]i.]         .1    STUDY    OF    THE    FOUR    GOSFFLS.  2!)7 

entails  a  life  of  self-denial,  the  abne^^ation  of  this  world,  the  sufterin«,^s 
incident  to  a  career  of  protest  against  its  errors  and  evils,  coupled 
with  an  uuc(|iii vocal  acce])tance  of  that  doctrine  of  non-resistance 
which  is  the  j;lory  of  the  cross  and  the  scorn  of  the  world.  Only  such 
men  can  teach  how  to  li\e  and  how  to  die  after  the  example  of  Jesus 
and  his  apostles.  If  we  had  sucli  soldiers  of  the  cross  ainon<>-  us,  not 
standing  aloof  as  ecclesiastical  superiors,  but  simply  bent  on  living  in 
the  midst  of  us  the  heavenly  life,  their  example  would  surely  be  con- 
tagious. It  would  then  be  deemed  a  nobler  thing  to  fight  Christ's 
battle  than  tt)  enter  an  army  and  be  drilled  to  slaughter  fellow^ 
creatures.  Let  us  honestly  state  and  face  this  truth  :  no  disciple  of 
Jesus  may  destroy  a  human  life,  or  have  recourse  to  ^■iolence.  Who- 
ever does  that,  is  not  his  fohower,  however  much  he  may  deceive  him- 
self into  that  belief.  Let  every  soldier  take  lower  ground  :  he  is  of 
the  world— opposed  to  the  cause  of  Christ — by  the  nature  of  his 
(■ailing.  The  rule  extends  in  other  directions  also.  No  rich  man  is 
ii  follower  of  Jesus  :  the  holding  of  superfluous  wealth  is  contrary  to 
his  requirement.  ■  Follower,  disciple.  Christian  : '  the  title  itself 
matters  not :  the  question  is  not  about  a  name  but  about  a  reality. 
Let  us  be  clear  on  the  point.  No  condemnation  is  involved  in  noii- 
discipleship  ;  but  much  harm  results  from  laying  claim  to  discipleship 
iipart  from  obedience  to  Jesus  and  entire  dedication  to  his  cause.  If 
the  lump  is  mistaken  for  the  leaven,  called  by  its  name,  no  sharp  dis- 
tinction being  discernible  between  the  two,  the  whole  mass  must  con- 
tinue unleavened.  Either  the  gospel  must  fail  of  its  purpose,  or  dis- 
<_!iples  must  be  found  who  will  devote  themselves  to  the  cause,  just  as 
.surely  as  the  marriage  feast  w^ould  have  been  a  failure  if  no  guests 
had  attended.  Yet  those  most  fitted  for  the  work  fail  to  recognise 
its  claim  upon  them,  so  that  it  becomes  necessary  to  hunt  up  recruits 
in  all  quarters.  Jesus  does  not  represent  the  mixture  of  classes  at  the 
marriage  feast  as  a  thing  desirable  in  itself,  but  the  occasion  was  of 
such  urgency  that  no  selection  was  possible  ;  they  'gathered  together 
iill  as  many  as  they  found,  both  bad  and  good  :'  that  touch  was  in- 
troduced into  the  parable  deliberately  and  of  set  purpose.  The  apostle 
Paul  recognised  its  truth  and  application.  '  For  behold  your  calling,  i  i.  Cor.  ^n 
brethren,  how  that  not  many  wise  alter  the  flesh,  not  many  mighty, 
not  many  noble  ;  but  (lod  cliose  the  foolish  things  of  the  world, 
that  he  migliD  put  to  shame  them  that  are  wise  ;  and  God  chose 
the  weak  things  of  the  world,  that  he  might  put  to  shame  the  things 
that  are  strong  :  and  the  base  things  of  the  world,  and  the  things  that 
fire  despised,  did  God  choose,  ijea  and  the  things  that  are  not,  that  he 
he  miglit  bring  to  nought  the  things  that  are.'  The  closing  words 
show  the  drift  of  the  argument  :  the  disciples  were  chosen  '  to  bring- 
to  naught  the  things  that  are,'  that  is,  to  annul  the  system  of  social 
life  prevailing  in  the  world,  a  system  grounded  upon  selfishness  and 
violence,  and  to  replace  it  by  the  gospel  of  Christ  Jesus,  his  '  wisdom  „  oi» 
from  God,  and  righteousness  and  santification,  and  redemption.' 
Obviously,  whoever  undertakes  such  a  work  must  rise  to  its  level, 
however  low  and  degraded  his  previous  career.  The  way  in  which 
Jesus  continues  the  parable  brings  out  that  fact.  He  describes  the 
king  as  making  an  inspection  of  the  guests,  detecting  one  who  was 
not  clothed,  as  the  others  must  have  been,  in  the  garment  indispens- 
able at  such  festivities,  and  calling  him  to  account  for  the  impro- 


298  THE    KING    AND    THE    KINGDOM:  [part  ii- 

>Mat.ii,i2  priefcy.     '  But  when  the  king  came  in  to  behold  the  guests,  he  saw 
there  a  man  which  had  not  on  a  wedding-garment :  and  he  saith  unto 
him,  Friend,  liow  earnest  thou  in  hither  not  having    a    wedding- 
garment  ? '     The  words  '  to  see  '  in  the  Authorised  Version  are  re- 
placed by  the  more  emphatic  words  '  to  behold.'  Tischendorf  renders, 
'  to  look  at  the  guests.'     Young's  version  is  as  follows  :  '  And  the 
king  having  come  in  to  view  the  guests,  saw  there  a  man  not  clothed 
Avith  clothing  of    the  marriage-feast,  and  saith  to  him.  Comrade, 
liow  camest  thou  in  hither,  not  having  the  clothing  of  the  marriage- 
feast  ? '     By  adding  this  to  the  parable  Jesus  obviated  any  idea  that 
the  kingdom  of  heaven  required  no  change  in  those  who  accepted  the 
invitation  to  enter  it.     Alford  notes  that  the  word  '  Friend '  is  '  more 
properly  Comrade  or  Companion.'     Those  who  associate  themselves 
with  Jesus  and  his  cause  must  conform  their  lives  to  his  pattern.     If 
not,  sooner  or  later,  in  this  age  oi-  the  next,  the  enquiry  will  come 
home  to  them,  '  Comrade,  how  camest  thou  in  hither,  not  having  the 
clothing  of  the  marriage-feast  ? '     The  fashion  of  this  world  will  not 
be  recognised  as  suitable  for  the  kingdom  of  heaven.     It  was  no 
light  offence  which  this  man  had  committed.     Of  his  own  free  will 
he  had  accepted  the   invitation,  and  he  had  no  excuse  to  offer  for 
neglecting  the  duty  incumbent  upon  every  guest  to  put  on  suitable 
•_'  Mat.  vi     apparel.    '  And  he  was  speechless.'  It  was  necessary  that  he  should  be 
..    13     forthwith  excluded.     '  Then  the  king  said  to  the  servants  (Gr.  bond- 
servants), Bind  him  hand  and  foot,  and  cast  him  out  into  the  outer 
darkness,'     The  words  '  and  take  him  away '  after  '  foot,'  are  omitted 
by  the  Revisers,  not  being  in  the  two  oldest  MSS.     The  command, 
'  Bind  him  hand  and  foot,'  suggests  that  the  man  would  as  a  matter  of 
course  attempt  to  maintain  his  position  by  violence.  Refusal  to  wear  the 
prescribed  raiment  is  indicative  of  an  intention  to  follow  the  customs 
of  the  outer  world.     The  practical  rejection  of  Christ's  doctrine  of 
non-resistance  is  the  fault  most  prominent  and  disastrous  among  those 
who   assume   a  place   in   his   kingdom   without  submitting  to  the 
guidance  of  his  mind  and  will.     Herein  consists  the  gravest  scandal 
upon  our  profession  of  Christianity.     The  warlike  spirit  has  never 
been    obliterated    from   the   instincts   of    mankind.     The   strange, 
devilish  notion  still  prevails,  that  AYar  is  a  necessity  of  human  exist- 
ence upon  earth.     It  is  deemed  paramount  among  the  resources  of 
civilization,  and  the  professed  ministers  and  representatives  of  Christ 
raise  no  protest  in  common  against  it,  and  not  only  suffer  the  curse 
to   continue   rampant   and  unreproved,  but  actually  consecrate  its 
banners  and  pray,  by  royal  command,  for  its  successful  issue  and  the 
blessing  of  the  God  and  Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  upon  those 
engaged   in   it.     What  a  shameful  parody  of  Christianity  is  this  I 
It  comes  from  our  overlooking  and  forsaking  one  of  the  first  principles 
of  the  gospel  of  Christ.     All  strife  and  bloodshedding  are  prohibited 
to  the  disciples  of  Jesus,  and  they  who  practise  or  approve  such 
things  have  no  part  or  lot  in  his  kingdom,  but  must  be  cast  out 
'  into  the  outer  darkness,'     The  import  of  that  phrase  is  clear,  and 
must  not  be  exaggerated.      It  simply  denotes  exclusion  from  the 
bright  and  festive  joy  inside  :  the  man  was  thrust  outside  into  the 
darkness  of  the  night,  as  being  unworthy  and  unfitted  for  the  comyjany 
within.     That  is  the  extent  of  the  condemnation  pronounced  against 
those  who  are  not  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  of  which  the  marriage- 


I'AitT  II.]  .1    STUDV    OF    THE    FOUR    GO>SFFLS.  29<> 

feast  is  typical.  Yet  this  is  no  liti'lit  penalty,  no  triflinj;-  loss.  It 
iiieans  the  perpetuation  of  this  world's  miseries  and  crimes,  the  cease- 
less round  of  wrong  and  suffering  insepai-able  from  a  social  system 
based  upon  selfishness  and  violence.  The  guilt  of  this  man  consisted 
in  the  fact  that  he  introduced  the  habits  and  maxims  of  the  world 
into  the  kingdom  of  hea\en.  Alas  !  that  fatal  mistake,  that  deadly 
sin,  has  grown  into  a  widespread,  crying  evil,  so  that  the  professed 
C'hurch  of  Christ  has  the  form  of  godliness  without  the  power  there- 
of. There  is  no  salvation  for  mankind  under  such  a  system. 
'There  shall  be  the  weeping  and  gnashing  of  teeth.'  ITow  true, -j  Mut.  irs 
how  applicable,  that  saying  "of  Jesus  to  the  existing  condition  of 
humanity  I 

Jesus  closed  the  parable  with  the  words  :  '  For  many  are  called,  but      „    u 
few    chosen.'     That  was  a   truth    which  pressed  hea\ily  upon  his 
mind  and  heart.    He  represented  all  those  first  invited  into  the  king- 
dom of  heaN-en,  as  either  neglecting  or  resenting  the  invitation.  And 
when,  after  scouring  the  country,  enough  were  found  to  start  the 
gospel  enterprise,  the  work  of  exclusion  had  to  be  undertaken.    Jesus 
realised  full  well  the  difficulty  of  establishing  the  kingdom  of  heaven 
among  mankind.     Those  to  whom  the  duty  of  assisting  naturally 
and  of  right  belonged,  held  aloof  from  the  enterprise.     Men  of  lighr, 
and  leading  preferred  to  devote  themselves  to  the  old,  established 
routine,  and  not  a  few  of  them  vehemently  opposed  the  new  scheme 
of  life  and  doctrine.     In  spite  of  that,  '  by  men  of  strange  tongues  14  i.  Cor.  ji 
and  by  the  lips  of  strangers'  the  gospel  invitation  was  proclaimed, 
and  the  Church  of  Christ  was  founded.     Then  came  another  evil, 
foreseen  by  Jesus  and  figured  in  this  parable  :  the  blending  of  the 
world's  teaching  with  his  pure  gospel.     That  evil  grew  monstrously 
and  still  prevails.     Men  boast  of  the  spread  of  the  gospel ;  but  if 
the  Church  has  overrun  the  world,  the  world  has  oveiTun  the  Church. 
The  spirit  of  Christendom  is  not  the  spirit  of  Christ ;  the  life  of 
professed  Christians  is  not  the  life  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven.     The 
freedom,  the  brightness,  the  joy  and  rejoicing  of  the  gospel  marriage 
feast  are  not  our  portion  upon  the  earth.     AVe  are  yet  in  the  '  outer 
darkness;'  and  the  state  of  society  in  general  accords  only  too  well 
with  the  sorrowful  ejaculation,  '  there  is  the  weeping  and  gnashing 
of  teeth.'      The  utmost  possible  peace,  goodwill  and  happiness, — 
these  are  the  characteristics  of  a  marriage  feast  and  of  the  kingdom 
of  heaven.     That  conception  of  it  may  seem  to  most  men  too  simple, 
too  good  to  be  true  :  but  what  higher,  nobler,  other  object  can  the 
heavenly  Father  have  than  the   prosperity  of  his  children  ?     The 
carol  with  which  the  angels  welcomed  the  Saviour  conveys  the  same 
idea  :  '  On  earth  peace,  good  pleasure  among  men.'     This  ameliora-  j  luUc  14 
tion  of  the  common  lot  of  mankind  on  earth  has  been  well  nigh  lost 
sight  of  as  constituting  the  salvation  of  Jesus.     The  apostle  Peter 
says  that  the  '  precious  blood  '  of  Christ  redeemed  the  elect  ' from  1 1.  p.t.  is 
your  vain  manner  of  life  handed  down  from  your  fathers.'     Salva- 
tion, as  preached  and  taught  generally,  is  a  very  different  kind  of 
thing, — a  system  of  intellectnal  beliefs,  a  scheme  of  justification,  a 
method  devised  for  the  appeasement  of  divine  justice  without  the 
sacrifice  of  transgressors.     Saturated  with  such  ideas,  men  interpret 
and  work  out  the  parables  in  such  a  way  as  to  harmonise  with  their 
own  notions.     Here  is  Dean  Alford's  note  on  the  wedding-garment. 


300  THE   KING    AND    THE    KINGDOM:  [part  ir. 

'  The  guest  was  bound  to  provide  himself  with  tliis  proper  habit,  out 
of  respect  to  the  feast  and  its  Author  :  how  tliis  was  to  be  provided, 
does  not  here  appear,  but  does  elsewhere.  The  garment  is  flie  impuiecl 
and  inherent  righteousness  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  put  on  sipnltolicaUy  in 
Baptism  (ClaL  iii.  27),  and  really  by  a  true  and  Hviug  faith  (ib.  ver. 
26),  without  which  none  can  appear  before  God  in  His  kingdom  of 
glory;  Heb.  xii.  14:  Phil.  iii.  7,  8:  Eph.  iv.  24:  Col.  iii.  10: 
Eom.  xiii.  14  :  which  truth  could  not  be  put  forward  here,  but  at  its 
subsequent  manifestation  threw  its  great  light  over  this  and  other 
such  similitudes  and  expressions.'  Aiford  assumes  that  Jesus  did  not 
bring  out  this  '  truth '  in  the  parable,  because  he  could  not.  Why  ? 
And  it  is  taken  for  granted  that  scattered  passages  in  the  Pauline 
epistles  are  to  be  applied  to  tlie  elucidation  of  a  parable  to  which  the 
apostle  never  referred.  Again,  why  ?  And  how  could  each  man's 
particular  wedding-garment  represent  the  one  robe  of  the  king's  son, 
whose  robe  is  not  even  mentioned  ?  And  what  connection  is  there 
between  allusion  to  a  garment  and  '  the  imputed  and  inherent  right- 
eousness of  the  Lord  Jesus '  ?  8uch  an  interpretation  makes  the  robe 
the  figure  of  a  figure,  not  of  a  reality.  That  is  a  fallacy  which  per- 
vades the  whole  doctrine  of  'imputed  righteousness.'  Righteous- 
ness,— however  much  men  may  persuade  themselves  to  the  contrary, — 
is  not,  cannot  be  imputed  to  those  who  do  not  possess  it.  If  Christ's 
righteousness  is  imputed  to  a  man,  it  is  because  that  man  '  doeth 
Si.  John  7  rightcousuess,'  and  '  is  righteous,  even  as  he  is  righteous.'  The  word 
'  impute '  is  the  pivot  on  vrhich  the  popular  doctrine  of  salvation 
rests  and  turns.  Let  us  examine  the  passages  in  which  the  word 
occurs. 
7  Lev.  IS  (a)  '  And  if  any  of  the  flesh  of  the  sacrifice  of  his  peace  oflerings 

be  eaten  on  the  third  day,  it  shall  not  be  accepted,  neither 
shall  it  be  imputed  unto  him  that  oflTereth  it.'    Young  renders 
'  neither  shall  it  be  imputed  '  by  '  it  is  not  reckoned.' 
17  Lev.  3,4       (b)  '  What  man  soever  there  be  of  the  house  of  Israel,  that  killeth 
an  ox,  or  lamb,  or  goat,  in  the  camp,  or  that  killeth  it  without 
the  camp,  and  hath  not  brought  it  unto  the  door  of  the  tent 
of  meeting,  to  offer  it  as  an  oblation  unto  the  Lord  before 
the  tabernacle  of  the  Lord  :  blood  shall  be  imputed  unto  that 
man ;  he  hath  shed  blood.'   Young  renders, '  blood  is  reckoned 
to  that  man.' 
■li  i.  Sam.  1.5      (c)  '  Let  uot  the  king  impute  anything  unto  his  servant,  nor  to  all 
the  house  of  my  father  :  for  thy  servant  knoweth  nothing  of 
all  this,  less  or  more.'     Instead  of  '  impute  anything,'  Young 
renders,  '  lay  anything.' 
i:iii. saiM.io      (d)  'Let  not  my  lord  impute  iniquity  unto  me,  neither  do  thou 

remember  that  which  they  servant  did  jjerversely.' 
:):;  Ps.  1, 2         (e)  '  Blessed  is  he  whose  transgression  is  forgiven,  whose  sin  is 
covered.     Blessed  is  the  man  unto  whom  the  Lord  imputeth 
not  iniquity,  and  in  whose  spirit  there  is  no  guile.' 
(f)  '  Imputin/f  this  his  power  unto  his  god.'     The  Revisers  render  : 
(A.  V.)  ^  Eren  he  whose  might  is  his  god.'  Young  renders  :  'Ascribeth 

this  his  power  to  his  god.' 
In  the  New  Testament  there  are  two  Greek  verbs  rendered  in  the 
Authorised  Version  '  impute  : '  eltogeo,  '  to  reckon  in  ;  to  impute  ; ' 
and  togizomai,  '  to  count,  reckon,  calculate,  compute  ;  to  take  into 


I  Hall.  II 


PART  II.]         .4    STUDY    OF    THE    FOUR    GOSFFLS.  301 

iiccoinit,  consider  ;  to  calculate,  reason.'     The  root  of  both  words  is 
/oftos,  which  is  defined  as  '  the  word  by  which  the  inward  thouiiht  is 
expressed  ;  the  inward  tliou,i>-ht  or  reason  itself.'     The  verb  eUofj/'o 
occurs  only  twice  :  5  Rom,  lo  (k)  and  Phile.  LS  :  '  put  that  to  mine 
account.'     The  verb  locjizomai  is  rendered  in  the  Authorised  Version 
as  'impute'  8  times,  and  in  other  passages  as  'account,  account  of, 
conclude,  count,  despise,  esteem,  lay,  number,  reason,  reckon,  suppose, 
think,  think  on,'  as  for  example:  'They  heasoxed  with  themselves.'  nMarkru 
'He  was  RECKONED  Avitli  transgrcssors.'      'I  thou(!HT  as  a  child.' ^^^''^'^-^ 
'  Lest  any  man  should  accgunt  of  me  above  that  which  he  seeth  me.'  ^;,  |i  \]l\._ ,., 
'  May  it  not  be  lai]*  to  their  account.'  4  ii.  Tim.  k; 

These  examples,  as  well  as  the  definitions  and  derivation  of  the 
word,  sufficiently  indicate  that  it  denotes  a  conclusion  founded  upon 
facts,  and  is  the  very  opposite  of  a  merely  supposititious,  non-existent 
ideal.  In  Webster's  Dictionary  'impute'  is  thus  defined:  '1.  to 
charge  ;  to  attribute  ;  to  set  to  the  account  of.  2.  to  attribute  ;  to 
ascribe.  ;>.  to  reckon  to  one  icliat  does  not  Itelovy  io  him. — Milton.' 
The  last  sense  is  that  which  has  been  introduced  and  generally  held 
by  theologians,  as  though  to  '  impute  '  involved  a  pretence  or  make- 
believe.  That  idea  does  not  properly  appertain  to  the  word,  and  it 
does  not  appear  in  Xuttall's  Dictionary,  where  the  definition  is 
simply:  '  to  ascribe  ;  to  reckon  to  ;  to  reckon.'  The  Revised  Version 
obviates  tlie  danger  of  misapprehension  by  banishing  the  word 
'impute'  and  supplying  its  place  by  'reckon',  in  all  the  passages 
except  one  in  which  it  occurs  in  the  Authorised  Version.  They  are  as 
follows  : — 

(g)  '  Even  as  David  also  pronounceth  blessing  upon  the  man,  unto  i  K"iii.  g-.s 
whom  God  reckoneth  righteousness  apart  from  works,  saying, 
Blessed  are  they  whose  iniquities  are  forgiven, 
And  Avhose  sins  are  covered. 

Blessed  is  the  man  to  whom  the  Lord  will  not  reckon  sin.' 
(h)  '  That  righteousness  might  be  reckoned  unto  them.'  „     n 

(i)  '  It  was  reckoned  unto  him  for  righteousness.     Now  it  was  not      „    -j-j-i 
written  for  his  sake  alone,  that  it  was  reckoned  unto  him  ;  but 
for  our  sake  also,  unto  whom  it  shall  be  reckoned.' 
(k)  '  Sin  is  not  imputed  when  there  is  no  law.'  o  Hom.  n 

(1)  '  Not  reckoning  unto  them  their  trespasses.'  i>  n-  c<>v.  i;« 

(m)  'Abraham  believed  (lod,  and  is  was  reckoned  unto  him  f  or  ■:  James  ■2:} 

righteousness.' 
These  are  all  the  passages  in  which  the  word  '  impute  '  occurs.     Let 
us  summarise  them. 

(a)  An  offering  not  imputed  as  an  offering. 

(b)  Slaughter  of  an  animal  not  off'ered  as  an  oblation,  imputed  as 

bloodshedding. 

(c)  A  fault  not  to  be  imputed,  because  not  committed. 

(d)  A  fault  not  to  be  imputed,  because  repented  of. 

(e)  and  (1;  A  fault  not  imputed,  because  forgiven. 

(f)  Power  imputed  to  a  deity. 

(g),   (h)    and   (i)  Righteousness    imputed    without   works,   after 

forgiveness. 
(k)  Sin  not  imputed  when  there  is  no  law. 
(m)  Faith  imputed  as  righteousness. 
No  difficulty  can  arise  except  in  connection  with  the  passages  (g). 


Riiiii.  12 


302  THE    KING    AND    THE    KINGDOM:  [part  ii. 

(h),  (i),  (k)  and  (m).  Take  first  (k)  :  'Sin  is  not  imputed  wlie  to 
there  is  no  law.'  Here  is  the  apostle's  argument.  8in  entered  into 
the  world  through  the  first  man,  Adam,  and  death  through  sin.  Sin 
and  death  are  inseparable  from  man's  nature  :  '  Death  passed  unto  all 
men,  for  that  all  sinned.'  That  was  so  before  the  law.  Death  was 
not  a  consequence  of  breaking  the  law  given  in  the  time  of  Moses  : 
for  in  the  absence  of  law  there  could  be  no  transgression  against  it  : 
„  13  '  For  until  the  law  sin  was  in  the  world  :  but  sin  is  not  imputed 
when  there  is  no  law.'  Yet  in  the  period  between  Adam  and  Mose.s 
death  prevailed  ;  not  because  of  the  law,  which  then  had  not  been 
given,  nor  because  men  repeated  the  first  transgression  of  Adam,  for 
„  14  that  they  did  not :  '  Nevertheless  death  reigned  from  Adam  until 
Moses,  even  over  them  that  had  not  sinned  after  the  likeness  of 
Adam's  transgression.'  The  cause  of  death  lies  deeper  down  than 
any  law, — in  man's  depraved  nature  and  life.     So  the  apostle  teaches 

3  Gal.  10      that  sin  is  independent  of  the  law,  which  after  a  time  Avas  '  added 
because  of  transgressions,'  to  reveal,  denounce  and  prohibit  them, 

T  Rom.  13     '  that  through  the  commandment  sin  migiit  become  exceeding  sin- 

3  i.  John  4  ful.'  Another  apostle  defines  sin  as  '  the  transgression  of  the  law.' 
•^  That  is  true  :  but  Paul  argues  that  it  is  something  more,  a  faulty 
condition  of  man's  nature,  tending  inevitably  to  death,  apart  from 
the  law  which  condemns  it.  The  apostle  John  intimates  as  much  by 
introducing  the  word  '  also,'  in  the  passage  immediately  preceding  : 
*  Whosoever  committeth  sin  transgresseth  also  the  law.'  The  state- 
ment that  '  sin  is  not  imputed  when  there  is  no  law,'  implies  the  con- 
verse, that  sin  is  imputed  Avhen  there  is  a  law.  Obviously  the  word 
'  imputed '  here  denotes,  not  the  assumption  of  a  state  of  being  which 
does  not  actually  exist,  but  the  fact  of  its  actual  existence.  Is  it 
probable,  or  even  possible,  that  the  same  word  'imputed'  is  not 
meant  to  carry  the  same  meaning,  when  applied  to  the  opposite  con- 
dition of  '  righteousness  ? '  To  ascertain  this,  let  us  examine  the 
passages  (g),  (h),  (i)  and  (m),  which  relate  to  'righteousness.' 
(g)  '  Even  as  David  also  pronounceth  blessing  upon  the  man,  unto 
whom  God  reckoneth  righteousness  apart  from  works,  sayinfj.  Blessed 
are  they  whose  iniquities  are  forgiven,  and  whose  sins  are  covered. 
Blessed  is  the  man  unto  whom  the  Lord  will  not  reckon  sin.'     The 

*i  Koiii.  \i  law  reckons  sin,  and  declares  its  penalty  :  '  For  as  many  as  have 
sinned  without  law  shall  also  perish  witliout  law  :  and  as  many  as 
have  sinned  under  law  shall  be  judged  by  law.'  The  apostle  places 
the  Gentiles  in  the  first  class,  and  the  Jews  in  the  second  class.  To 
the  latter  the  words  of  David  apply,  '  Blessed  is  the  man  to  whom 
the  Lord  will  not  impute  sin  : '  this  signifies  the  withdrawal  of  the 
penalty  against  sin  regarded  as  '  the  transgression  of  the  law  ; '  in 
other  words,  '  Blessed  are  they  whose  iniquities  are  forgiven,  and 
whose  sins  are  covered.'  But  forgiveness  is  a  reality,  not — as  is  too  • 
generally  assumed — a  kind  of  legal  fiction,  a  simple  change  of  dis- 
position towards  the  sinner,  a  revocation  of  the  curse  of  the  law.  If 
in  that  sense  only  iniquities  were  forgiven  and  sins  covered,  those 
'  under  law  '  would  simply  revert  to  the  position  of  those  '  without 
law,'  and  would  still  '  perish.'     The  non-imputation  of  sin  cannot 

6  Hoin.  23  alter  its  deadly  cffects  :  'for  the  wages  of  siu  is  death.'  Therefore 
when  the  apostle  quotes  the  Psalmist's  words,  he  regards  them  as  a 
description  of  '  the  blessedness  of  the  man  unto  whom  God  imj)utetli 


I'AUT  II.]         A    STUJJY    OF    THE    FOUR    GOSFELS.  003 

righteousness  without  works.'  T<j  be  clear  as  to  the  iiieanini>-  of  this 
we  must  have  regard  to  the  context.  The  ap;)Stle  had  asserted  :  '  Ky  ;5  K'hh.  20 
the  works  of  the  hiw  shall  no  flesh  be  justified  in  his  sight,'  or, 
according  to  the  marginal  reading,  '  out  of  works  of  law  shall  no  flesh 
be  accounted  righteous  in  his  siglit.'  Young  renders  :  'By  works  of 
law  shall  no  flesh  be  declared  righteous  before  Him.'  If  righteous- 
ness is  attained,  it  cannot  be  through  a  law  which  has  been  dis- 
obeyed :  '  For  through  the  law  comelk  the  knowledge  of  sin.'  The  .,  m 
a]i(jstle  proceeds  :  '  But  now  apart  from  the  law  a  righteousness  of  .,  ji 
<iod  hath  been  manifested;  .  .  .  even  the  righteousness  of  (Jod 
through  faith  in  Jesus  Christ ; '  and  he  reaches  this  conclusion  :  'We  •,  -'s 
reckon  therefore  that  a  man  is  justified  l)y  faith  apart  from  th(^  works 
of  tlie  law.'  Then  he  instances  Abraham  as  justified  not  by  works, — 
obedience  to  the  law, — but  by  faith  :  '  Abraham  believed  (lod,  and  it  4  liom. :! 
Avas  reckoned  unto  him  for  righteousness  ; '  and  then  quotes  David 
as  pronouncing  blessing  '  upon  the  man  unto  whom  (lod  reckoneth 
righteousness  apart  from  works.'  '  (lod  reckons,'  '  imputes,'  'counts,' 
'declares,'  '  attributes,' — the  words  carry  one  and  the  same  sense, — 
both  '  sin  '  and  '  righteousness  '  to  men,  the  former  through  his  law 
against  sin,  the  latter  '  apart  from  the  law.'  Sin  has  been  manifested 
through  the  law  ;  but  now  righteousness  through  faith  in  Jesus 
Christ.  Elsewhere  the  apostle  proclaims  the  same  doctrine:  '  For  -  Tit.  3-7 
we  also  were  aforetime  foolish,  disobedient,  deceived,  serving  divers 
lusts  and  pleasures,  living  in  malice  and  envy,  hateful,  hating  one 
another.  But  when  the  kindness  of  (Jod  our  Saviour,  and  his  love 
toward  men,  appeared,  not  by  works  done  in  righteousness,  which  we 
did  ourselves,  but  according  to  his  mercy  he  saved  us,  tlirough  the 
washing  of  regeneration  and  renewing  of  the  Holy  (Ihost,  which  he 
poured  out  upon  us  richly,  through  Jesus  C^hrist  our  Saviour  ;  that, 
being  justified  by  his  grace,  we  might  be  made  heirs  according  to  the 
hope  of  eternal  life.'  Is  it  not  obvious,  indisputable,  tliat  the 
righteousness  imputed  through  faith  is  as  actual,  real,  visible, 
tangible,  personal,  as  was  the  sin  imjDuted  through  the  law  ?  Paul 
recognized  in  human  nature  two  opposite  conditions,  'sin,'  and 
'  grace,'  the  one,  condemned  by  the  law,  working  misery  and  death, 
the  other,  arising  out  of  faith  in  Jesus,  tending  to  peace  and  life. 
'Where  sin  abounded,  grace  did  abound  more  exceedingly:  that,  5  h.  .111.20, 
as  sin  reigned  in  death,  even  so  might  grace  reign  through  righteous- 
ness unto  eternal  life  through  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord.'  Introduce 
into  any  part  of  the  impassioned  arguments  of  Paul  the  idea  of  a 
merely  substituted  moral  rectitude,  the  imaginative  fiction  about 
putting  on  the  robe  of  '  the  imputed  and  inherent  righteousness  of 
the  Lord  Jesus,'  and  you  ^\ill  thereby  mar,  distort,  destroy,  the  force 
of  the  apostle's  reasonings,  and  contradict  scores  of  passages  in  which 
he  asserts  and  glorifies  the  saving  power  of  faith  and  grace. 

Take  now  the  passage  (h) :  '  That  righteousness  might  be  reckoned 
unto  them.'  The  word  '  also,'  after  'them,'  has  been  omitted  by  the 
Revisers,  not  being  in  the  three  oldest  MSS.  The  drifc  of  the  argu- 
ment is  clear.  Abraham,  whilst  yet  uncircumcised,  was  reckoned 
righteous  by  his  faith  in  God;  therefore  he  may  be  regarded  as  father 
of  the  uncircumcised  Gentiles  who  have  that  same  righteousness 
based  on  faith.  That  a  real,  active  life  of  righteousness  was  in  the 
apostle's  miiid,  is  evident  from  the  context,  when  lie  says  :  '  who  also  1  num.  vi 


304  THE    KING    AND    THE   KINGDOM:  [part  ii. 

walk  in  the  steps  of  that  faith  of  our  father  Abraham  which  he  had 
in  uncircnmcision.' 

4R(Mn. ■2-2-21  Thc  passage  (i)  is  as  follows:  'It  was  reckoned  unto  him  for 
righteousness.  Now  it  was  not  written  for  his  sake  alone,  that  it  was 
reckoned  unto  him  ;  but  for  our  sake  also,  unto  whom  it  shall  be 
reckoned,  who  believe  on  him  that  raised  Jesus  our  Lord  from  the 
,.  jii, 21  dead.'  The  faith  of  Abraham  was  perfect:  'Looking  unto  the 
promise  of  God,  he  wa^'ered  not  through  unbelief,  but  waxed  strong 
through  faith,  giving  glory  to  God,  and  being  fully  assured  that, 
what  he  had  promised,  he  was  able  also  to  perforna.'  The  expression, 
'  waxed  strong  through  faith,'  indicates  the  effect  of  the  faith  upon 
Abraham, — on  which  account — '  wherefore  also — it  was  reckoned  to 
him  for  righteousness.'  As  with  him,  so  with  us  :  our  fliith  must 
produce  its  result,  and  will  therefore  be  reckoned  for  righteousness. 
Young,  instead  of '  shall  be  reckoned,'  renders  literally,  '  is  about  to 
be  reckoned.'  The  faith  of  Abraham  may  be  regarded  in  two  ways : 
either  as  an  instantaneous  mental  conviction,  or  as  a  continuous 
disposition  of  the  mind.  Those  who  assert  most  strongly  and  posi- 
tively the  apostle's  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith,  according  to 
their  own  version  of  it,  generally  adopt  the  former  view,  which 
certainly  was   not   that   of    Paul.      For   the   scripture   he   quotes, 

I.-,  ucii.  c.  '  Abraham  believed  God,  and  it  was  reckoned  unto  him  for  righteous- 
ness,' relates  to  the  first  giving  of  the  promise.     Years  elapsed  beibre 

4HI.1U.1S-21  it  was  fulfilled.  Yet  Abraham  '  in  hope  believed  against  hope  .  .  . 
and  without  being  weakened  in  faith  he  considered  his  own  body 
now  as  good  as  dead  (he  being  about  a  hundred  years  old),  and  the 
deadness  of  Sarah's  womb  :  yea,  looking  unto  the  promise  of  God,  he 
wavered  not  through  unbelief,  but  waxed  strong  through  faith,  giving 
glory  to  God,  and  being  fully  assured  that,  what  he  had  promised,  ho 
was  able  also  to  perform.'  The  Ee\'isers  have  omitted  the  word 
'  not '  before  '  his  own  body,'  on  the  authority  of  the  three  oldest 
MS8.,  and  have  replaced  '  neither  yet '  by  '  and,'  before  '  the  dead- 
ness,' which  agrees  with  Y'oung,  the  former  being  a  mistranslation. 
The  apostle  Paul  shows  the  patriarch's  faith  in  active  exercise  from 
first  to  last.  The  apostle  James  goes  farther  in  the  same  direction. 
In  the  last  passage  to  be  considered  (m),  he  says  :  'And  the  scripture 
was  fulfilled  which  saith.  And  Abraham  believed  God,  and  it  was 
reckoned  unto  him  for  righteousne^is.'  He  quotes  that  passage  in 
connection  with  the  offering  up  of  Isirac,  which  was  many  years  later 

■2  jaiiifs  17    still ;  and  his  object  was  to  prove  that  '  faith,  if  it  have  not  works, 

„     -'0    is  dead  in  itself.'     He  argues  :  '  But  wilt  thou  know,  0  vain  man, 

"     -'1    that  faith  apart  from  works  is  barren  ?    Was  not  Abraham  our  father 

justified  by  works,  in  that  he  offered  up  Isaac  his  son  upon  the  altar  ? 

„     ■22    Thou  seest  that  faith  wrought  with  his  works,  and  by  works  was 

faith  made  perfect  ;  and  the  scripture  was  fulfilled  .  .  .'  Paul  and  . 

James  are  at  one  in  their  definition  of  faith,  and  they  only  who 

misunderstand  the  former  imagine  him  to  be  in  opposition  to  thc 

latter.     The  marvellous  breadth  and  fulness  of  Paul's  intellect  render 

his  style  difficult  in  some  parts  of  comprehension,  and  careful  study 

is  required  in  order  to  grasp  his  meaning  and  avoid  misconceptions. 

The  apostle  Peter  recognised  the  value  of  Paul's  epistles,  but  was  also 

conscious  of  certain  misconstructions  put  upon  them  from  the  first, 

:!ii.  i\t.  15,  and  uttered  a  caution  with  respect  to  them.     He  wrote  :  '  Even  as 


PART  II.]         A    STUDY    OF    THE    FUUIi    GOSPELS.  305 

our  beloved  brother  Paul  also,  accordiuo-  to  the  wisdom  i^iven  to  him, 
wrote  unto  you  ;  as  also  in  all  /u's  epistles,  speakini^  in  them  of  these 
things;  wherein  are  some  thin<j;s  hard  to  bo  understood,  which  tlie 
ignorant  and  unsteadfast  wrest,  as  t/w;/  do  also  the  other  scriptures, 
unto  their  own  destruction.'  This  warning  is  as  much  needed  now 
as  ever.  Poctrines  most  startling  and  obnoxious  have  been  deduced 
from  the  Pauline  epistles.  Theologians  of  past  generations  have 
founded  sects  and  systems  out  of  them,  and  some  of  their  followers 
in  the  present  day  quote  certain  texts  as  conclusive  arguments, 
knowing  and  caring  little  about  the  contexts,  and  never  troubling  to 
investigate  for  themselves  the  original  meaning  of  passages  'hard  to 
be  understood'  even  by  the  best  trained  and  most  earnest  minds,  and 
the  true  sense  of  which  is  wholly  obscured  and  lost  to  prejudiced  or 
ignorant  and  self-confident  readers. 

When  the  enemies  of  Jesus  left  him  and  went  their  way,  full  of 
indignation  at  the  obvious  application  of  his  parables  to  themselves, 
it  was  for  the  purpose  of  consulting  as  to  the  best  means  of  silencing 
liis  voice  for  ever.  They  feared  to  arrest  him  themselves,  and  deemed 
ib  safer  to  bring  him,  if  possible,  under  some  criminal  charge,  within 
the  clutches  of  the  law.  If  they  could  ensnare  him  into  some  expres- 
sion of  an  opinion  which  might  be  construed  as  treasonable,  they 
could  thereby  ruin  him  Avith  safety  to  themselves.  '  Then  went  the  -'2  Mat.  15 
Pharisees,  and  took  counsel  how  they  might  ensnare  him  in  his  talk.' 
Luke  discloses  the  plot  in  all  its  fulness.  'And  they  watched  him,  20  Luke -.'o 
and  sent  forth  spies,  which  feigned  themselves  to  be  righteous,  that 
they  might  take  hold  of  his  speech,  so  as  to  deliver  him  up  to  the 
rule  and  to  the  authority  of  the  governor.'  These  emissaries  were 
not  common  informers.  Such  men  would  have  been  ill-fitted  for  so 
delicate  a  mission.  Men  of  high  position  in  the  religious  and 
political  world  were  not  ashamed  to  become  the  acting  agents  in  this 
detestable  scheme.  iMark  records  that  fact.  *  And  they  send  unto  12  Murk  13 
him  certain  of  the  Pharisees  and  of  the  Herodians,  that  they  might 
catch  him  in  talk.'  Alford  explains  :  '  The  Herodians  were  more  a 
political  than  a  religious  sect,  the  defendants  and  supporters  of  the 
dynasty  of  Herod,  for  the  most  part  Sadducees  in  religious  sentiment. 
These,  though  directly  opposed  to  the  Pharisees,  were  yet  united 
with  them  in  their  persecution  of  our  Lord,  see  Matt.  xxii.  IG  : 
Mark  iii.  G.'  The  teaching  of  Jesus  was  as  hateful  to  the  secularists 
as  to  the  religionists.  From  the  first,  the  world  at  large  was  opposed 
to  his  gospel:  'For  of  a  truth  in  this  city'  (said  the  disciples)  4 .vsts 27 
'  against  thy  holy  Servant  Jesus,  whom  thou  didst  anoint,  both 
Herod  and  Pontius  Pilate,  with  the  Gentiles  and  the  peoples  of 
Israel,  were  gathered  together.'  The  doctrine  of  non-resistance  to 
evil  was  enough,  by  itself,  to  rouse  the  opposition  of  military  rulers. 
Their  power  is  founded  upon  physical  strength  and  justice — or 
injustice — by  violence,  war,  bloodshed, — from  all  of  which  Jesus 
lield  back  his  followers.  The  following  passage,  from  Count  Leon 
Tolstoi's  '  What  I  believe,'  is  well  worth  our  consideration  :  '  Not  one 
of  the  Apostles,  not  one  of  Christ's  disciples,  could  have  supposed  it 
necessary  to  forbid  a  Christian's  committing  murder,  wdiich  is  mis- 
called war.  See  what  Origen  says  in  his  answer  to  Celsus,  chapter  63  : 
*'  Celsus  exhorts  you  to  help  the  sovereign  with  all  your  strength,  to 


306  THE    KING    AND    THE   KINGDOM:  [part  ii, 

take  part  in  his  duties,  to  take  up  arms  for  him,  to  serve  under  his 
banner,  if  necessary  to  lead  out  his  army  to  battle.  Moreover,  we 
may  say,  in  answer  to  those  who,  beino^  io-norant  of  our  faith,  require 
the  murder  of  men  of  us,  that  even  their  high-priests  do  not  soil  their 
hands  in  order  that  their  God  may  accept  their  sacrifice.  No  more 
do  we."  And  concluding  by  the  explanation  that  Christians  do  more 
good  by  their  peaceful  lives  than  soldiers  do,  Origen  says  :  "  Thus  we 
iight  better  than  any  for  the  safety  of  our  sovereign.  We  do  not,  it 
is  true,  serve  iinder  his  baimers,  and  we  should  not,  even  were  he  tO' 
force  us  to  do  so."  It  was  thus  that  the  first  Christians  regarded 
war  and  thus  their  teacher  spoke  when  addressing  the  great  men  of 
the  world  at  the  time  when  hundreds  and  thousands  of  martyrs  were 
perishing  for  the  Christian  faith.'  Here  is  a  sufficient  explanation  of 
the  hostility  of  rulers  to  the  Christian  faith.  Whenever  the  head  of 
the  state  authorises  the  persecution  of  a  section  of  his  subjects,  it 
must  be  for  some  grave  state  reason,  for  the  upholding  of  his  supre- 
macy against  private  opinions  deemed  antagonistic  to  national  policy 
and  welfare.  The  heathens  had  what  we  have  and,  alas  !  boast  of 
having, — a  state -religion,  a  system  of  faith  and  divine  worship  recog- 
nised as  orthodox,  an  ecclesiastical  oiganisation  working  harmoniously 
with  the  imperial  policy,  the  State  and  the  Church  mutually  sup- 
porting and  strengthening  each  other.  True,  the  persecutions  under 
the  Roman  emperors  took  the  form  of  upholding  the  recognised  mode 
of  divine  worship.  That  came  naturally  about,  because  the  divinities, 
they  honoured  included  such  as  IMars  and  Venus,  whose  cult  was 
suited  to  a  people  which  gloried  in  war  and  revelled  in  immorality. 
10  i.  Cor.  20  Paul  asserted  '  that  the  things  which  the  Gentiles  sacrifice,  they  sacri- 
s  John  a  fice  to  devils,  and  not  to  God.'  Jesus  declared  that  the  devil  '  was: 
a  murderer  from  the  beginning,'  and  told  those  who  sought  his  life,. 
'  Ye  are  of  your  father  the  devil,  and  the  lusts  of  your  father  it  is 
your  will  to  do.'  The  apostle  James  thus  criticised  the  warlike  spirit  r 
4  James  1, 2 '  Whence  come  wars  and  whence  come  fightings  among  you  ?  come  they 
not  hence,  even  of  your  pleasures  that  war  in  your  members  ?  Ye  lust, 
and  have  not:  ye  kill,  and  covet,  and  cannot  obtain :  ye  fight  and  war.^' 
3  i.  John  s  We  are  assured  :  '  To  this  end  was  the  Son  of  God  manifested,  that 
he  might  destroy  the  works  of  the  devil.'  The  apostle  James 
3  James  15  dcscribes  a  wisdom  '  that  cometli  not  down  from  above,  but  is  earthly,, 
sensual  (or  natural,  or  animal),  devilish.'     That  is  the  wisdom  of  the 

„     u>    world,  based  on  '  jealousy  and  faction,'  and  leading  to  '  confusion, 

»  17  and  every  vile  deed.  But  the  wisdom  that  is  from  above  is  first  pure, 
then  peaceable,  gentle,  easy  to  be  entreated,  full  of  mercy  and  good' 
fruits,  without  variance  (uncoutentious — Young),  without  hypocrisy.. 

„     IS    And  the  fruit  of  righteousness  is  sown  in  peace  for  (or,  by)  them  that 

make  peace.'     The  apostle  Paul  speaks  in  precisely  the  same  terms : 

2i.  Cor.  6     'We  speak  wisdom  among  the  perfect:  yet  a  wisdom  not  of  this 

world  (or,  age),  nor  of  the  rulers  of  this  world  (or,  age),  which  are 

7     coming  to  nought :  but  we  speak  God's  wisdom  in  a  mystery,  evem 

the  wisdom  that  hath  been  hidden,  Avhich  God  foreordained  before- 

„     8     the  worlds  unto  our  glory  :  which  none  of  the  rulers  of  this  world 
(or,  age)  kuoweth  :  for  had  they  known  it,  they  would  not  have- 
crucified  the  Lord  of  glory.'     The  method  of  Jesus  is  opposed  to  the 
5     method  of  the  world,  and  our  faith  does  '  not  stand  in  the  wisdom  of 

",     2     men,  but  in  the  power  of  God,'  in  '  Jesus  Christ,  and  him  crucified  : " 


PART  II.]         A    STUDY    OF    THE    FOUR    GOSFELS.  307 

all  strivings  ag-ainsfc  evil  relinquished,  to  make  way  for  unlimited 
gentleness  and  patient,  unresisting  sufterance.     That  is  the  wisdom 
proclaimed 'among  the  perfect  (or,  full  grown),' the  strong  '  meat '  3  i.  dr.  i 
of  the  spiritual  disciples  of  Christ,  as  contrasted  with  the  '  milk  '  on       „     2 
which 'babes  in  Christ'  must  needs  be  fed,  being 'yet  carnal ; ' —      „     a 
'  for  whereas,'  says  the  apostle,   '  there  is  among  you  jealousy  and 
strife,  are  ye  not  carnal,  and  walk  after  the  manner  of  men  ?  '     This 
conformity  to  the  world  in  spirit  and  practice,  robs  the  gospel  of 
Christ  of  its  most  distinguishing  characteristics,  and  accounts  for  the 
harmony  prevailing  between  tlie  Church  and  the  world.      Tolstoi 
continues  :  '  But  in  our  times  the  question  Avhether  a  Christian  ought 
to  take  part  in  war  never  seems  to  occur  to  any.     Youths  brought  up 
according  to  the  Church  law,  go  every  autumn,  at   fixed  periods,  to 
the   conscription   halls,  and,  with  the  assistance   of  their  spiritual 
pastors,  there  renounce  the  law  of  Christ.'     Such  facts  give  rise  to 
very  solemn  reflections,  and  force  upon  us  the  conclusion   that  the 
spirit  of  the  age  is  essentially  anti-christian.     It  jjrevails,  not  in 
Eussia  only,  but  throughout  Europe.     Both  in  the  last  century  and 
in  the  present  it  made  France  a  desolating  scourge,  and  threw  her 
back,  baffled,  humiliated,  defeated,  to  nurse  again  into  activity,  as 
soon  as  may  be  possible,  the  demon-spirit  of  revenge.     Germany  is  a 
permanent   camp   of   soldiery.       The   Continent   seethes   with    the 
elements  of  disturbance,  rebellion,  anarchy.     England  rushes  deli- 
berately, light-heartedly,  now  and  again,  into  wars  supposed  to  l)c 
necessary   for   self-preservation   or  prestige.      The   lust  for   powei", 
dominion,  and  military  supremacy,  is  a  national  insanity,  a  delirium- 
tremens,  resulting  from  an  inherited  habit  and  curse  of  blood-drink- 
ing.    And  all  this  goes  on,  generation  after  generation,  side  by  side 
with  a  profession  of  Christianity  !     Not  without  reason  did  the  apostle 
James   connect    the   wisdom   of    the   world,   and   its   strifes,    with 
'  hypocrisy.'     "Where  are  the  '  disciples  '  of  Jesus  ?     Are  they  simply 
dumb,  or  are  they  non-existent  ?     Assuredly  they  are  not  engaged  in 
the  work  of  bringing  '  to  nought  the  things  that  are.'     Let  any  one  1  i.  Cor.  -25 
of  them,  the  very  humblest,  rise  up  in  personal,  practical  protest,  and 
he  will  be  treated,  as  were  the  first  disciples,  as  a  fool,  a  fanatic,  a 
rebel  against  social  order.     Tolstoi  gives  an  instance  :  'A  short  time 
ago  a  peasant  refused  to  enter  the  military  service,  grounding  his 
refusal  on  the  words  of  the  Gospel.     The  clergy  all  tried  to  persuade 
the  man  that  his  view  of  the  matter  was  erroneous  ;    and  as  the 
peasant  still  beheved  in  Christ's  words,  and  not  in  theirs,  he  was  cast 
into  prison,  and  kept  there  till  he  denied  Christ.     And  this  takes 
place  although  avc,  Christians,  received  1800  years  ago  a  perfectly 
clear  and  definite  commandment  from  our  God,  which  said,  "Never 
consider  men  of  another  nation  as  thine  enemies  ;  look  upon  all  men 
as  brethren,  and  behave  towards  all  men  as  thou  dost  towards  thy 
fellow-countrymen  ;  therefore  shalt  thou  not  kill  those  whom  thou 
cailest  thine  enemies  ;  love  all  and  do  good  to  all."  '     The  following- 
fact,  which  is  stated  by  the  translator  of  Tolstoi's  book,  '  What  I 
believe,'  is  equally  suggestive  :  '  The  work  has  unfortunately  been 
forbidden  in  Russia,  but  the  manuscripts  pass  from  hand  to  hand, 
doing  their  silent  work  of  regeneration  in  the  hearts  of  those  who 
long  for  the  coming  of  the  kingdom  of  God  on  earth.'     The  existing 
state  of  society  has  been  brought  about,  and  is  maintained,  by  that 

X  2 


308  THE    KING    AND    TEE    KINGDOM:  [part  ii. 

same  combination  of  religionists  and  secularists  which  schemed  the 
death  of  Jesus  and  the  overthrow  of  his  teaching. 

22  Mat.  iG,  _      IMatthew's  account  is  as  follows.     '  And  they  send  to  him  their 

^"  disciples,  with  the  Herodians,  saying,  Master  (or,  Teacher),  we  know 

that  thou  art  true,  and  teachest  the  way  of  Grod  in  truth,  and  carest 

not  for  auy  one  :  for  thou  regardcst  not  the  person  of  men.     Tell  us 

therefore.  What  thinkest  thou  ?     Ts  it  lawful  to  give  tribute  unto 

i2M.nki4,   Cffisar,  or  not?'     Mark  stands  as  follows:  'And  when  they  were 

^^  come  they  say  unto  him,  Master  (or,  Teacher),  we  know  that  thou 

art  true,  and  carest  not  for  any  one  :  for  thou  regardest  not  the  ]3er- 

son  of  men,  but  of  a  truth  teachest  the  way  of  G-od  :  Is  it  lawful  to 

give  tribute  unto  Caesar,  or  not  ?     Shall  we  give,  or  shall  we  not 

20Lnk3  2i.  givc  ?  '  Lukc's  accouut  is  souicwhat  condensed.  'And  they  asked 
--  him,  saying.  Master  (or,  Teacher),  we  know  that  thou  sayest  and 
teachest  rightly,  and  acceptest  not  the  person  of  cmij,  but  of  a  truth 
teachest  the  way  of  God  :  Is  it  lawful  for  us  to  give  tribute  unto 
Cresar,  or  not  ?  '  What  a  sudden  change  of  tone  !  What  an  un- 
expected spirit  of  deference  !  What  a  flattering  encomium  of  the 
Teacher  they  had  hitherto  hated  and  despised  !  What  a  subtle 
question,  and  how  difficult  to  answer !  Jesus  saw  through  it  and 
them,  denounced  their  hypocrisy,  and  replied  warily  and  wisely. 
Let  them  produce  the  coin  which  was  payable  as  tribute.  They  did 
so.     Whose  was  the  likeness  stamped  npon  it,  and  to  whom  did  the 

22  Mat.  IS-   superscription  refer  ?     '  But  Jesus  perceived  their  wickedness,  and 

"°  said.  Why  tempt  ye  me,  ye  hypocrites  ?     Shew  me  the  tribute  money. 

And  they  brought  unto  him  a  penny  (denary — Young).     And  he 

saith  unto  them,  Whose  is  this  image  and  superscription  ?     They 

12 Mark  1.3,   say  unto  him,  Ctesar's.'     Mark:  'But  he,  knowing  their  hypocrisy, 

^''  said   unto    them,  Why  tempt   ye  me  ?    bring  me  a  penuy,  that  I 

may   see    it.     And    they   brought    it.     And    he   saith   unto    them, 

Whose    is    this   image    and    superscription  ?     And   they    say   unto 

20 Luke 23,  him,  Cassar's.'  Luke  is  briefer:  'But  he  perceived  their  crafti- 
"■^  ness,  and  said  unto  them.  Shew  me  a  penny.  Whose  image  and 
superscription  hath  it  ?  And  they  said,  Cassar's.'  Obviously  the 
coin  had  once  been  Caasar's  property,  issued  from  his  mint,  and  bore 
his  name  as  subject  to  his  controh  As  it  was  received  from  or 
through  him,  how  could  it  be  unlawful  to  restore  it  to  him  ?  The 
teaching  of  Jesus  about  'the  way  of  God'  had  no  connection  with 
Cesar's  property.  Their  claims  must  not  be  mingled,  but  kept 
distinct.  Duty  to  God  could  not  be  paid  in  Caesar's  coin,  and  no 
question  could  properly  arise  as  to  whether  it  belonged  to  the  Eoman 

22  Mat.  21  emperor  or  to  God.  'Then  saith  he  unto  them,  Render  therefore 
unto  Caesar  the  things  that  are  Caesar's,  and  unto  God  the  things  that 

12  Mark  IT    are  God's.'     Mark  :  '  And  Jesus  said  unto  them.  Render  unto  Ceesar 

the  things  that  are  Cresar's,  and  unto  God  the  things  that  are  God's.! 

20 Luke 25    Luke  :  'And  he  said  unto  them.  Then  render  unto  Cresar  the  things 

that  are  Caesar's,  and  unto  God  the  things  that  are  God's.'     Jesus 

decided  that  tribute  was  lawfully  payable  ;  and  the  apostle  Paul  has 

13  Rnm.  ci,  7  exprcsscd  the  same  opinion  :  '  For  this  cause  ye  pay  tribute  also  ;  for 

they  are  ministers  of  God's  service,  attending  continually  upon  this 
very  thing.  Render  to  all  their  dues  :  tribute  to  whom  tribute  is  due ; 
custom  to  whom  custom  ;  fear  to  whom  fear,  honour  to  whom 
honour.'     With  equal  clearness  Jesus  asserted  that  there  were  other 


PART  II.]         A    STUDY    OF    THE    FOUR    GOSPELS.  309 

tliing-s  which  belonged  to  God,  and  which  must  be  rendered  to  him, 
not  to  Ciesar.     Need  we  ask,  What  things  ?     *  Thou  slialt  love  the  12  Muk  30 
Lord  thy  (}od  from  all  thy  heart,  and  from  all  thy  soul,  and  iVom  all 
thy  mind,  and  from  all  thy  strength.'     Man  himself,  all  his  bodily 
and  intellectual  powers,  must  be  yielded  np  to  God.     The  command, 
'  Thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbour  as  thyself,'  clashes  not  therewith,  but 
is  its  necessary  outcome  :  '  He  tluit  loveth  his  neighbour  hath  fulfilled  13  uom.  s 
the  law.'   That  is  the  extent  of  human  duty  :  '  Owe  no  man  anything, 
save  to  love  one  another.'     The  question  presented  to  Jesus  was  one 
of  allegiance,  not  of  neighbourly  obligation,  and  his  answer  implied 
that  some  things  no  worldly  monarch  may  claim.     With  the  due 
payment  of  tribute,  custom,  fear,  honour,  the  requirements  of  sub- 
jection and  loyalty  to  an  earthly  ruler  end,  and  Christian  liberty  lays 
hold  upon  the  counsel  of  a  free  spirit,  '  Owe  no  man  anything,  save 
to  love  one  anotlier.'    '  Render  unto  God  the  things  which  are  God's: ' 
only  that  high  rule  of  conscience  makes  discipleship  to  Jesus  possible. 
When   charged  with  disobedience  to   the   commands  of  the  ruling- 
powers,  religionists  and  secularists  being  again  nnited  in  opposition 
to  the  doctrine  of  Jesus,  'Peter  and  the  apostles  answered  and  said,  uActs-jD 
We  must  obey  God  rather  than  men.'     There  is  a  sharp  distinction 
between  the  things  of  God  and  the  things  of  Caesar.     The  laws  laid 
down  by  Jesus  for  the  guidance  of  his  disciples  accord  not  with  those 
on  which  hununi    society  has  been  constituted.      They   who  were 
willing  to  present  themselves  'a  living  sacrifice,  holy,  acceptable  toi-2Roin.  1 
God,'  were  exhorted  to  be  altogether  dilFerent  from  the  world  around  : 
'  Be  not  fashioned  according  to  this  world  (or,  age)  :  but  be  ye  trans-      »     2 
formed  by  the  renewing  of  your  mind,  that  ye  may  prove  what  is  the 
good  and  acceptable  and  perfect  will  of  God.'     Among  the  duties 
arising  out  of  this  transformation  and  renewal   of    the  mind,  the 
apostle  includes  these:  'Render  to  no  man  evil  for  evil  ...  Be  at      »   i">i^ 
peace  with  all  men  .  .  .  Aveuge  not  yourselves  .  .  .  Overcome  evil      „   10,21 
with  good.'     That  is  not  the  spirit  of  the  world,  neither  are  such 
maxims  consistent  with  the  oflTice  and  duties  of  the  world's  rulers. 
Yet  the  apostle  regarded  the  existing  authorities  as  worthy  of  respect, 
and   counselled   subjection.     Let   us   take  Tiseheudorf's  rendering, 
which  harmonises  with  Young's  :  'Let  every  soul  l)e  subject  to  the  13 Rum.  1 
authorities  that  are  over  him.     For  there  is  no  authority  but  from 
God  :  and  those  which  are,  have  been  ordained  by  God.'    All  govern- 
ment is  of  divine  origin,  for  without  it,  society  would  fall  into  fatal 
anarchy:  '  So  that  he  who  sets  himself  against  the  autliority,  resists  the       ..     2 
ordinance  of  God  :  and  they  that  resist  will  receive  to  themselves 
judgement.'   That  is  equally  true,  whether  such  resistance  be  justifiable 
or  unjustifiable,  tacit  and  passive  or  overt  and  active.     Jesus  told 
Pilate,  'Thou  wouldest  have  no  authority  against  me,  except  it  were  19 John ii 
given  thee  from  above  :  therefore  he  that  delivered  me  unto  thee  hath 
greater  sin.'     The  harmless  Jesus  ought  never  to  have  been  dragged 
before   the   judgment-seat   of    Pilate.      That   was   the   act   of   the 
religionists  of  those  days,  and  how  often  has  it  been  repeated  since  ! 
So  common  a  thing  was  it  from  the  first  for  Christians  to  be  treated 
as  their  Master  was,  that  the  apostle  Peter  wrote  as  follows :   '  Beloved,  4  i.  Pet.  12 
think  it  not   strange  concerning  the  fiery  trial  among  you,  which 
cometh  upon  you  to  prove  you,  as  though  a  strange  thing  happened 
unto  you  :  but  inasmuch  as  ye  are  partakers  of  Christ's  suflerings. 


SIO  THE    KING    AND    THE    KINGDOM:  [part  ii. 

4  i.  Pet.  15  rejoice  .  .  .  For  let  none  of  you  suffer  as  a  murderer,  or  a  thief,  or 
„  1(1  an  evil-doer,  or  as  a  meddler  in  other  men's  matters  :  but  if  a  man 
suffer  as  a  Christian,  let  him  not  be  ashamed  ;  but  let  him  glorify  God 
„  17  in  this  name.  For  the  time  is  come  for  judgement  to  begin  at  the 
house  of  God  :  and  if  //  begin  first  at  us,  wliat  shall  le  the  end  of 
them  that  obey  not  the  gospel  of  God  ?'  There  was  no  certainty  of 
escape  from  arraignment  before  judicial  tribunals  ;  all  that  could  be 

3  i.  Pet.  17    said  was,  '  Is  is  better,  if  the  will  of  God  should  so  will,  that  ye  suflFer 

for  well-doing  than  for  evil-doing.'  The  experience  was  so  general,  that 
it  seemed  like  a  dispensation  of  Providence,  and  a  somewhat  puzzling 

4  i.  Cor.  9     one,  even  to  the  mind  of  Paul,  who  wrote,  '  For,  I  think  God  hath 

set  forth  us  the  apostles  last  of  all,  as  men  doomed  to  death  :  for  we 
are  made  a  spectacle  unto  the  world,  and  to  angels,  and  to  men.' 
Yet  in  truth,  here  was  no  new  thing  :  alway.s  throughout  human 
history  the  rectification  of  abuses  has  involved  suffering,  and  the  path 
of  progress  has  had  to  be  cut  with  difficulty,  risk  and  loss  through 
obstacles.  That  has  been  done  by  the  banding  of  men  together  in  a 
common  cause,  by  taking  up  arms,  resorting  to  violence,  by  strife, 
v^ar,  bloodshed.  The  method  of  Jesus  is  altogether  different :  there 
is  the  same  concentration  of  energy,  unity  of  purpose,  spirit  of  oppo- 
sition to  existing  evils  ;  but  there  is  self-sacrifice  without  self-defence, 
arguments  enforced  without  arms,  freedom  claimed  and  exercised,  but 

12 II. -b. 4  not  fought  for,  resistance  to  the  utmost,  if  need  be  'unto  blood, 
striving  against  sin,'  but  always  passive,  never  a  sword  in  the  hand, 
but  often  a  cross  on  the  shoulders,  borne  cheerfully  even  to  the 
extremity  of  suffering  and  death.  Only  by  regarding  'the  things 
Avhich  are  Caesar's '  as  separate  and  distinct  from  '  the  things  which 
are  God's,'  can  the  work  of  reformation  go  on,  and  the  spirit  of 
martyrdom  prevail.  Neither  the  judges  who  condemn,  nor  those  who 
are  condemned,  being  accused,  with  more  or  less  truth,  of  seeking  to 

17  Acts  6  turn  '  the  world  upside  down,'  are  to  be  blamed.  The  former  are  the 
representatives  and  exponents  of  the  national  mind  and  will,  the 
latter,  of  the  mind  and  will  of  Ghrist.  That  these  are  not  in 
harmony,  but  contrary  the  one  to  the  other,  is  a  loss  and  grief  to  the 
whole  community,  all  the  heavier  because  not  recognised  and  felt 
generally.  Inherited  opinions  and  habits  of  life  must  needs  clash 
against  new  ideas,  the  earthly  and  the  heavenly  refuse  to  combine, 
and  a  struggle  for  mastery  ensues.  That  is  the  penalty  of  past  errors 
and  evils,  which  the  disciples  of  Jesus  Avere  called  to  endure.     Paul 

11  ii.  Cor.  23  suffered  in  that  way  more  than  did  the  other  apostles  :  '  in  prisons 
more  abundantly,  in  stripes  above  measure,  in  deaths  oft.'  Yet  he 
never  railed  against  constituted  authorities,  but  regarded  them  as 

13 Rom.  G  'ministers  of  God's  service.'  The  world  must  needs  take  its  own 
course,  and  Christians  theirs.  Police,  judges,  jailers,  there  must_ 
be,  perchance  even  soldiers,  though  it  is  time  that  standing  and 
invading  armies  should  be  abolished  as  inconsistent  with  modern 
enlightenment  and  civilization  :  but  all  these  things  appertain 
to  Cffisar,  not  to  Christ,  and  with  them  his  true  followers  can 
have  no  concern.  Neither  Caesar  nor  Ctesar's  representatives  are 
to  be  condemned :  they  are  declared  to  be  ministers  of  God, 
»  4  avengers  'for  wrath  to  him  that  doeth  evil;'  but  they  are  not 
ministers    of  Christ,   in    the   sense    in    which    the   apostles   were, 

4  i.  Cor.  1     of  whom  Paul  said,  '  Let  a  man  so  account  of  us,  as  of  ministers 


PART  II.]         A    STUDY   OF    THE   FOUR    GOSPELS.  311 

of  Christ,  and  stewards  of  the  mysteries  of  God.'  Their  offices, 
their  function,  tlicir  rule  of  life  and  action,  are  altogether  different. 
Jesus  chose  his  disciples  out  of  the  world,  to  be  separate  from 
the  world,  to  the  same  extent  and  in  the  same  way  as  he  was. 
To  call  any  man  Avho  wields  a  sword,  returns  a  blow,  sentences  or 
executes  criminals,  goes  to  law,  or  accumulates  property  on  earth, 
i\  disciple  of  Jesus,  is  to  mistake  the  spirit  of  his  calling  and  confer 
the  title  wrongly.  Let  us  be  content  to  take  lower  gi-ound.  It  is 
enough  that  we  are  believers  in  Jesus,  saved  by  faith  in  him  :  it  is 
too  much  to  arrogate  to  ourselves  a  position  and  status  claimable 
only  by  such  as  devote  themselves  wholly  to  his  cause.  The  first 
step  towards  clearness  of  view,  accuracy  of  thought,  and  sound  judg- 
ment on  this  important  question,  is  to  keep  distinct  in  our  minds  the 
things  of  CcBsar  and  the  things  of  Christ.  The  tendency  of  our 
spiritual  guides  has  been  in  the  opposite  direction.  Dean  Alford's 
comment  on  this  saying  of  Jesus  is  as  follows:  'These  weighty 
words,  so  much  misunderstood,  bind  together,  instead  of  separating, 
<he  political  and  religious  duties  of  the  followers  of  Christ.'  Christ 
tissumed  no  political  duties  :  how  then  can  his  '  followers  '  do  so  ? 

The  reply  of  Jesus  astonislied  his  questioners.    *  And  they  marvelled  ^-^  ii'vrk  it 
greatly  at  him.'     There  was  nothing  in  his  words  which  they  could 
condemn  or  dispute.     Instead  of  being  able  to  frame  an  accusation 
or   argument   against   him,  they  Avere  reduced   to   an   ignominious 
silence.     '  And  they  were  not  able  to  take  hold  of  the  saying  before  -o  Luke  26 
the  people  :  and  they  marvelled  at  his  answer,  and  held  their  peace.' 
They  quitted  his  presence,  foiled  in  their  purpose  and  admiring  his 
sagacity.     '  And  when  they  heard  it,  they  marvelled,  and  left  him,  '22  Mat.  22 
and  went  their  way.' 

Jesus  was  next  questioned  by  the  Sadducees  with  respect  to  their 
fundamental  article  of  disbelief.     '  And  there  come  unto  him  Saddu- 12  Mark  is 
cees,  which  say  that  there  is  no  resurrection.'     Matthew  states  that 
it  was  on  the  same  day.     "  On  that  day  there  came  to  him  Sadducees,  22  Mat.  23 
•which  say  (dr.  saying)  that  there  is  no  resurrection.'     Alford  and 
Tischendorf  adopt  the  reading  'saying,'  which   indicates  that   the 
Sadducees  began  a  discussion  about  their  peculiar  doctrine.     Luke's 
.account  implies  that  'certain '  of  the  sect  had  been  selected  for  that 
purpose.     '  And  there  came  to  him  certain  of  the  Sadducees,  they  20  Luke  27 
Avhich  say  that  there  is  no  resurrection.'     The  Authorised  Version 
stands  :  '  which  deny  that  there  is  any  resurrection,'  but  the  Revisers 
have  followed  the  reading  of  the  two  oldest  MSS.     There  is  a  sub- 
stantial agreement  between  the  evangelists  as  to  the  question  pro- 
pounded.    Matthew  :    '  And   they   asked   him,   saying,   jMaster   (or,  22  Mat.  2-1 
Teacher;,  Moses  said,  If  a  man  die,  having  no  children,  his  brother 
shall  marry  his  wife  (Gr.  shall  perform  the  duty  of  a   husband's 
brother  to  his  wife),  and  raise  up   seed  unto  his  brother.'     Mark: 
*  And  they  asked  him,  saying.  Master  (or,  Teacher),  Moses  wrote  12  Mark  lo 
unto  us,  If  a  man's  brother  die,  and  leave  a  wife  behind  him,  and 
leave  no  child,  that  his  brother  should  take  his  wife,  and  raise  up 
seed  unto  his  brother.'     Luke  :  '  And  they  asked  him,  saying,  blaster  -20  Luke  28 
(or,  Teacher),  Moses  wrote  unto  us,  that  if  a  man's  brotlier  die, 
having  a  wife,  and  lie  be  childless,  his  brother  should  take  the  wife, 
and  raise  up  seed  unto  his  brother.'     A  case  was  stated,  which  may 


312  THE    KING    AND    THE    KINGDOM:  [part  ii. 

22  Mat.  25-  have  been  real  or  imaginary,  rising  out  of  this  custom.     '  Now  there 

-''  were  with  us  seven  Isrethren  :  and  the  first  married  and  deceased, 

and  having  no  seed  leit  his  wife  unto  his  brother  ;  in  like  manner 

tlie  second  also,  and  the  third,  unto  the  seventh  (Gr.  seven).     And 

12  Mark  20-  aftcr  them  all  the  woman  died.'  Mark  :  'There  were  seven  brethren  : 
"  and  the  first  took  a  wife,  and  dying  left  no  seed ;  and  the  second  took 
her,  and  died,  leaving  no  seed  behind  him  ;  and  the  third  likewise : 
and  the  seven  left  no  seed.  Last  of  all  the  woman  also  died.'  The 
Eevisers,  following  the  two  oldest  MSS.,  have  omitted  the  words 
'  had  her,  and  '  after  '  seven.'  In  the  Alexandrine  MS.  the  additional 
word  'likewise'  is  introduced.  In  the  constant  copying  and  rc- 
copying  of  the  manuscripts  there  seems  to  have  been  a  temptation 
and  tendency  to  improve  occasionally   upon  the   original.     Luke  : 

20  L-.ike  20-  '  Tlicrc  wcre  therefore  seven  brethren  :  and  the  first  took  a  wife,  and 
'  ^^  died  childless  ;  and  the  second  ;  and  the  third  took  her  ;  and  like- 
wise the  seven  also  left  no  children,  and  died.  Afterward  the  woman 
also  died.'  That  having  been  the  state  cf  things  in  this  life,  in  what 
relation  would  the  woman  stand  to  these  seven  in  the  next  ?  She 
had  belonged  to  each  :  Avhich  one  of  them  will  be  entitled  to  claim 

22  Mat.  2s     her  ?     '  In  the  resurrection  therefore  whose  wife  shall  she  be  of  the 

12  Mark  23  scvcu  ?  for  they  all  had  her.'  Mark  :  '  In  the  resurrection  whose 
wife  shall  she  be  of  them  ?  for  the  seven  had  her  to  wife.'     liuke  : 

20  Luke  33  '  In  the  resurrection  therefore  whose  wife  of  them  shall  she  be  ?  for 
the  seven  had  her  to  wife.'  The  question  was  not  an  argnment,  but 
the  answer  might  serve  as  a  basis  on  which  to  raise  one.  Yec  man's 
ignorance  of  the  conditions  of  a  future  state  of  existence  is  no  more 
a  reason  for  denying  it,  than  is  the  ignorance  of  an  unborn  child  a 
disproof  of  all  that  appertains  to  the  world  into  which  it  is  destined 
to  enter.  Light  and  knowledge  come  with  life,  and  human  relation- 
ships in  this  world  are  morlified  by  man's  free  will  to  suit  with  the 
necessities  of  his  being.  '  For  this  cause  shall  a  man  leave  his  father 
and  mother,  and  shall  cleave  to  his  Avife.'     But  death  severs  every 

7  Rom.  2  bond  :  '  For  the  woman  that  hath  a  husband  is  bound  by  law  to  the 
husband  while  he  liveth  ;  but  if  the  husband  die,  she  is  discharged 
from  the  law  of  the  husband.'  If  these  Sadducees  meant  to  argue 
that  the  connections  existing  in  this  life  must  perforce  continue 
in  the  next,  that  confusion  and  discord  must  thence  ensue,  and  that 
there  was  no  conceivable  outlet  from  their  supposed  dilemma,  they 
must  have  been  shallow  rcasoners  indeed.  A  bond  of  union  first 
voluntarily  entered  into,  and  then  by  an  overruling  fate  compulsorily 
and  legally  broken, — how  can  it  be  assumed  to  be  binding  and 
infrangible  subsequently  ?  Jesus  told  them  that  they  were  in  error, 
their  mistake  proceeding  from  ignorance  of  the  divine  will  and  power. 

22  Mat.  20     '  But  Jcsus  auswcrcd  and  said  unto  them.  Ye  do  err,  not  knowing 
the  scriptures,  nor  the  power  of  God.'     Mark  represents  this  as  a  " 
question,  Jesus  setting  them  to  the  task  of  self-scrutiny  and  enquiry. 

12  Mark  24  '  Jcsus  Said  uuto  them,  Is  it  not  for  this  cause  that  ye  err,  that  ye 
know  not  the  scriptures,  nor  the  power  of  God  ?  "  Resurrection 
from  death  was  not  a  marriage  ceremony,  but  the  entrance  into  an 

22  Mat.  30  angclical  and  heavenly  state  of  being.  '  For  in  the  resurrection  they 
neither  marry,  nor  are  given  in  marriage,  but  arc  as  angels  in 
heaven.'  It  is  not  said,  '  after  the  resurrection,'  nor  '  in  the  resurrec- 
tion-life,' but  simply  '  in  the  resurrection,'  that  is,  in  the  act  and  fact 


PAKT  II.]         .4    STUDY    OF    THE    FOUR    GOSFELS.  313 

of  resurrection,  ■which  has  iiothiii<;'  to  do  uith  marriage,  but  is  a 

transforaiation  to  a  more  exalted  (M)iiditiou  of  being.     Mark  is  to  the 

same  eil'ect.     'For  when  they  shall  rise  from  the  dead,  they  neither  i-^  Mark 2rv 

marry,  nor  are  given  in  marriage,  but  are  as  angels  in  lieaven.'     It  is 

not,  '  when  they  shall  have  risen,'  but  '  when  they  shall  rise,'  literally 

according  to  the  '  Englishman's  Greek  New  Testament,'  '  when  from 

among  dead  they  rise  ; '  it  is  not,  '  they  will  neither  marry,  nor  be  given 

in  marriage,'  but,  '  they  neither  marry,  nor  are  given  in  marriage  : ' 

equivalent  to  :  '  the  rising  i'rom  the  dead  is  not  marrying  and  giving 

in  marriage,  but  the  assumption  of  a  heavenly  life.'     The  argument 

resembles  that  of  Paul,  when  he  said  :  '  For  the  kingdom  of  God  is  i4  Rom.  ir 

not  eating  and  drinking,  but  righteousness  and  peace  and  joy  in  the 

Holy  Ghost.'     Young  renders  'angels'  as  'messengers.'     The  idea 

of  heavenly  'angels'  or  'messengers'  was  familiar   to  the   Jews: 

'  And  of  the  angels  he  saith.  Who  maketh  his  angels   winds  (or,  i  neii.  - 

spirits),  and  his  ministers  a  flame  of  fire.'     The  words  of  Jesus  would 

naturally  be  taken  in  that  sense,  not  as  referring  to  any  non-existence 

of  marriage  between  angels  ;  for  what  did  the  hearers  know,  what  do 

we  know,  as  to  that  ?     Such  an  interpretation  of  the  saying  makes  it 

pointless,  not  an  argument  for  conviction,  but  a  statement  beyond 

luiman  apprehension.     Is  it  not  rather  to  be  viewed  as  a  waiver  of 

the  question  the  Sadducees  had  sought  to  discuss  ?     The  doctrine  of 

the  resurrection  lies  wholly  apart  therefrom,  and  has  to  be  considered 

by  itself,  as  little  connected  with  marrying  and  giving  in  marriage,  as 

with  buying  and  selling,  building  and  planting,  or  any  other  of  the 

concerns  of  this  life. 

Luke's  account  of  the  words  of  Jesus  is  much  fuller,  and  is  evidently 
taken  from  a  different  record.     '  And  Jesus  said  unto  them,  The  sons  20  Luke  34- 
of  this  world  (or,  age)  marry,  and  are  given  in  marriage  :  l)ut  they  ^^' 

that  are  accounted  worthy  to  attain  to  that  world  (or,  age),  and  the 
resurrection  from  the  dead,  neither  marry,  nor  are  given  in  marriage  : 
for  neither  can  they  die  any  more  :  for  they  are  equal  unto  the  angels ; 
and  are  sous  of  God,  being  sons  of  the  resurrection.'  This  passage 
may  be  regarded  from  the  same  point  of  view.  The  institution  "of 
marriage  is  suited  to  man's  necessities  in  this  world  :  the  attainment 
of  a  higher  condition  of  existence  and  the  resurrection  from  the 
dead,  is  not  marrying  or  giving  in  marriage,  for  it  is  a  state  of 
immunity  from  death,  of  equality  with  angels,  of  divine  sonship. 
Jesus  puts  aside  the  earthly,  carnal  question  of  the  Sadducees,  and 
dwells  on  the  ideas  properly  arising  in  connectiou  with  the  hope  of  a 
resurrection.  There  is  another  passage  in  which  a  reply  of  Jesus  has 
to  be  applied  and  restricted  in  the  same  way.  The  disciples  asked 
him,  '  Kabbi,  who  did  sin,  this  man,  or  his  parents,  that  he  should  be  ^  John  2 
born  blind  ?  Jesus  answered,  Neither  did  this  man  sin,  nor  his  »  » 
parents.'  Of  course  Jesus  was  not  asserting  that  no  sin  had  ever 
been  committed  by  them,  but  simply  that  there  was  no  sin  to  be 
thought  of  in  connection  with  the  blindness.  Just  so  here  :  Jesus  is 
asked,  '  In  the  resurrection  whose  wife  of  them  shall  she  be  ? '  and  he 
replies  in  effect.  Neither  wife  of  this  man  nor  of  that  man  :  they 
neither  marry  nor  are  given  in  marriage  ;  all  thought  of  that  must 
be  dismissed  in  connection  with  the  resurrection.  Jesus  turned  the 
minds  of  the  disciples  into  the  proper  channel  by  adding,  'but  that 
the  works  of  God  should  be  made  manifest  in  him,'  and  then  went  on 


314  THE    KING    AND    THE    KINGDOM:  [part  ii. 

it  Joim  5  to  the  truth,  '  When  I  am  in  the  world,  I  am  the  light  of  the  world.' 
So  here  :  having  dismissed  the  idea  about  marriage,  he  explains,  '  for 
neither  can  they  die  any  more  :  for  they  are  equal  unto  the  angels  ; 
and  are  sons  of  God,  being  sons  of  the  resurrection.'     To  adopt  a 

joHeb. 9  scriptural  phrase  :  'He  taketh  away  the  first,  that  he  may  establish 
the  second.'  This  interpretation  is  corroborated  by  the  way  in  which 
the  words  of  Jesus  are  understood  and  dealt  with  by  Matthew  and 
Mark.  They  are  condensed  into  a  single  sentence  :  '  They  neither 
marry  nor  are  given  in  marriage,  but  are  as  angels  in  heaven, '^-whicli 
corresponds  in  structure  with  :  '  Neither  did  this  man  sin,  nor  his 
parents,  but  that  the  works  of  God  should  be  made  manifest  in  him.' 
On  the  words  :  '  For  neither  can  they  die  any  more,'  Alford  makes 
this  explanatory  comment  :  i.e.,  they  will  have  '  no  need  of  a  succession 
and  renewal,  which  is  the  main  purpose  of  marriage.'  That  is  as 
though  we  should  argue  that  if  Adam  and  Eve  had  not  forfeited 
immortality  they  would  have  remained  childless,  having '  no  need  of  a 
succession  and  renewal.'    Not  the  simple  perpetuation,  but  the  increase 

1  Gen.  28  of  the  spccies,  has  been  the  divine  purpose  from  the  beginning  :  '  Be 
fruitful,  and  multiply,  and  replenish  the  earth.'  To  reach  the  mind 
of  Jesus,  his  meaning  must  not  be  thus  guessed  at,  but  pondered  with 
earnest  care.  It  is  not  enough  to  skim  the  narrative,  and  take  for 
granted  the  inference  which  seems  to  lie  upon  the  surface.  Does  the 
divine  law,  '  Be  fruitful  and  multiply,'  apply  to  this  world  only  ?  Let 
those  who  infer  as  much  from  the  saying  of  Jesus,  '  they  neither 
marry  nor  are  given  in  marriage,  but  are  as  the  angels  in  heaven,'  at 
least  take  the  j^ains  to  reconsider  his  words,  and  be  quite  sure  about 
the  doctrine  before  they  promulgate  it. 

The  words  of  Jesus  as  reported  by  Luke,  '  they  that  are  accounted 
worthy  to  attain  to  that  world  (or,  age),  and  the  resurrection  from 
the  dead,'  are  not  consistent  with  the  idea  of  a  general  resurrection 
and  reunion  of  mankind.  We  arc  bound  to  irive  the  same  significance 
to  the  expression  '  accounted  worthy,'  in    Luke,  as  attaches  to   it 

.'j  Acts  41  elsewhere  ;  and  it  must  certainly  be  regarded  as  restrictive.  '  Re- 
joicing that  they  were  counted  worthy  to  suffer  dishonour  for  the 
Name.'  '  To  the  end  that  ye  may  be  accounted  worthy  of  the 
kingdom  of  God,  for  which  ye  also  suffer.'  The  attainment  of  '  that 
world  (or,  age) '  in  conjunction  with  '  the  resurrection  from  the  dead,' 
is  not  represented  as  a  certainty  for  all  men,  but  as  a  privilege  depen- 
dent upon  character.  Such  a  conception  of  the  resurrection  was 
contrary  to  the  popular  notion,  in  accordance  with  which  the 
Sadducees  had  argued.  They  assumed  that  there  would  be  no 
exceptions,  no  selection,  that  the  seven  brethren  and  the  woman,  as  a 
matter  of  course,  would  find  themselves  together  hereafter  under 
similar  conditions  to  those  existing  in  this  world.  Not  so.  The  sons 
of  this  age  do  not  all  become  sons  of  that  age  through  the  resurrection, 
which  involves  no  resumption  of  former  earthly  ties,  no  marrying  or 
giving  in  marriage.  The  Sadducees  took  the  lowest  and  most  carnal 
view  of  the  resurrection  ;  Jesus  takes  the  highest  and  most  spiritual, 

10  i.  Cor.  44  as  did  the  apostle  Paul,  Avhen  he  wrote,  '  It  is  sown  a  natural  body  ; 
it  is  raised  a  spiritual  body.'  They  might  with  equal  unreason  have 
asked  :  In  the  resurrection  whose  servant  shall  he  be,  who  bound 
himself  to  many  masters,  and  Avas  successively  freed  by  each  ?  Or, 
In  the  resurrection,  who,  out  of  a  succession  of  Head  Masters,  will  be 


PART  11.]         A    STUDY    OF    THE    FOUR    GOSPELS.  315 

Head  Master,  tlie  rijihts,  duties,  dignities  and  emoluments  of  the  office 
l)cii),o:  held  for  life,  and  then  beconiin,<>-  vested  in  another  ?  It  might 
Avell  be  answered,  In  the  lesnrrection  they  neither  assnme  servitude 
nor  inastership  ;  in  the  resurrection  they  neither  become  teachers  nor 
pupils  :  the  meaning  obviously  being,  not  that  there  will  be  no 
servitude  and  no  mastership,  no  teachers  and  no  pujjils  in  the 
resurrection-life,  but  that  (juestions  with  resjjcct  to  those  matters  can 
have  no  bearing  on  tlie  primary  question,  Is  there  a  resurrection  ? 
And  then,  having  sho^vn  what  the  resurrection  is  not,  in  those  respects, 
all  that  the  resurrection  really  involves  might  be  dweh  on  in  the 
l)recise  way  and  words  of  Jesus  when  replying  to  the  question  which 
was  actually  propounded  to  him.  He  reveals  an  'age,' a  condition 
of  existence,  to  be  attained  by  those  Avorthy  of  it,  to  whom  the 
resurrection  will  be  much  more  than  the  living  over  again  of  the 
former  earthly  life  ;  they  will  become  immortalised,  etherialised, 
deiiied  :  'for  neither  can  they  die  any  more  :  for  they  are  equal  unto 
the  angels  ;  and  are  sons  of  (Jod,  l)cing  sons  of  the  resurrection.'  The 
gift  of  immortality  is  promised,  not  to  all,  but  to  those  worthy  to 
attain  to  that  'age,'  in  which  Jesus  will  bestow  it  upon  those  Avho 
behold  him  and  believe  in  him:  '  x\nd  this  is  the  will  of  Him  who  o  juiuuo 
«ent  me,  that  every  one  who  is  beholding  the  Son,  and  believing  in 
liim,  may  have  life  age-during,  and  I  will  raise  him  up  in  the  last  day.' 
On  the  words  '  beholding  the  Son,'  take  this  apostolic  comment  :  '  But  a  ii.  Cor.  is 
we  all,  with  unveiled  face  reflecting  as  a  mirror  (or,  beholding  as  in  a 
mirror)  the  glory  of  the  Lord,  are  transformed  into  the  same  image 
from  glory  to  glory.' 

Having  disposed  of  the  question  of  the  Sadducees,  Jesus  proceeded 
to  give  a  scriptural  proof  of  the  doctrine  they  disputed.     'But  as  22  Mat.  31. 
touching  the  resurrection  of  the  dead,  have  ye  not  read  that  which  ^^ 

was  spoken  unto  you  by  God,  saying,  I  am  the  Ood  of  Abraham,  and 
the  God  of  Isaac,"^  and  the  God  of  Jacob?'     Mark  is  fuller.     '  But  12  Mark  20 
jis  touching  the  dead,  that  they  are  rai.sed  ;  have  ye  not  read  in  the 
book  of  Moses,  in  i  he  place  coticcmhui  the  Bush,  how  God  spake  unto 
him,  saying,  I  am  the  (Jod  of  Abraham,  and  the  God  of  Isaac,  and 
the  (Jod  of  Jacob.?'     Luke  is  as  follows  :  'But  that  the  dead  are20Luk«:;7 
raised,  even  Moses  sliewed,  in  tJte  place  conccrnimi  the  Bush,  when  he 
calleth  the  Lord  the  God  of  Abraham,  and  the  (iod  of  Isaac,  and  the 
Ood  of   Jacob.'     The   italicised   words,  '  the  place   concerning,'  in 
Mark  and  Luke,  are  rendered  '  the  history  concerning,'  by  Alfoi'd, 
who  observes  :  '  The  words  may  in  the  original  mean  either  "  in  the 
i-Jiapier  concerning  the  history  of  God  appearing  in  the  Bush,"  or 
*'  tvlien  he  iva.s  at  the  Bush."   The  former  is  the  more  probable.'    From 
that  passage  Jesus  drew  this  inference  :  '  God  is  not  the  God  of  the  22  Mat.  z-i 
dead,  but  of  the  living.'     The  two  oldest  MSS.  begin,  '  He  is  not  the 
Ood.'     Tischendorf  renders  literally  :  '  He  is  not  God  of  dead,  but 
of  living.'      Mark:  'He  is  not  the  (lod  of  the  dead,  but  of  thei2Mai'<27 
living  :  ye  do  greatly  err.'     Luke  :  '  Now  he  is  not  the  (Jod  of  the  20Luk«3s 
dead,  but  of  the  living  :  for  all  live  unto  him.'     Young  translates  the 
three  passages  thus  :  '  God  is  not  a  (xod  of  dead  men,  but  of  living.' 
'  He  is  not  the  God  of  dead  men,  but  of  living  men.'     '  He  is  not  a 
God  of  dead  men,  but  of  living.'     The  argument  is  clear  and  con- 
clusive, resting  upon  two  foundations  :  (1)  the  essential  relationship 
of  God  to  man  ;  (2)  the  declared  continuance  of  that  relationship 


5Ps. : 

2 

10  Ps. 

li5 

75  Ps. 

7 

CS  Ps. 

5 

3  Jer. 

4 

04  Isa 

.  J 

816  THE   KING    AND    THE    KINGDOM:  [pakt  ii. 

centuries  aftei-  the  terininatiou  of  the  earthly  lives  of  the  patriarchs. 
Jesus  takes  the  title  '  God  '  in  its  natural  and  proper  sense,  as 
denoting-  rulership,  oversight,  protection.  He  asserts  that,  obviously 
and  necessarily,  '  He  is  not  the  God  of  dead  men,  but  God  of  living 
men.'     It  is  possible  for  men  to  imagine  and  worship  false  gods,  as 

4G:ii.  s  the  apostle  says  :  'Not  knowing  God,  ye  were  in  liondage  to  them 
which  by  nature  are  no  gods.'  The  term  '  god'  is  synonymous  with 
king,  lord,  judge  :  '  Hearken  unto  the  voice  of  my  cry,  my  King  and 
my  God.'  '  The  Lord  is  King  for  ever  and  ever.'  '  God  is  the  judge  : 
He  putteth  down  one  and  lifteth  up  another.'  Any  word  will  suit 
which  denotes  power,  responsibility  and  loving  care  :  '  A  father  of 
the  fatherless,  and  a  judge  of  the  widows,  is  God  in  his  holy  habita- 
tion.' '  AVilt  thou  not  fi'om  this  time  cry  unto  me,  My  father,  thou 
art  the  guide  (or,  companion)  of  my  youth  ? '  '  For  thy  Maker  is 
thine  husband:  the  Lord  of  hosts  is  his  name.'  The  title  '  God ' 
conveys  the  idea  of  absolute  supremacy  over  living  beings  :  '  all  live 
unto  him  ; '  it  cannot  be  applied  in  connection  with  those  who  have 

3  o:ii.  17  passed  out  of  existence.  Some  fom-  hundred  years  after  the  death  of 
Abraham,  God  said  to  Moses,  '  I  am  the  God  of  Abraham,  and  the 
God  of  Isaac,  and  the  God  of  Jacob.'  That  by  itself  was  proof 
positive  that  those  patriarchs  were  then  alive.  And  inasmuch  as 
they  had  died,  they  must  ns  certainly  have  been'  raised,'  resuscitated. 
Death  and  the  resurrection  are  two  parts,  the  one  visible,  the  other 
invisible,  of  the  same  phenomenon.  AVe  can  see  the  ending  of  the 
old  and  earthly  life  ;  we  cannot  see  the  beginning  of  the  new  and 
heavenly  life.  The  course  of  the  one  is  open  to  us,  the  course  of  the 
other  is  hidden  from  us.  The  latter  is  not,  on  that  account,  un- 
natural or  incredible  :  are  we  not  as  sure  of  the  existence  of  the  wind 
which  is  invisible,  as  we  are  of  the  earth  which  is  visible  ?  God  has 
revealed  the  one  to  mortal  eyes,  but  not  the  other  ;  true,  we  have 
evidences  of  the  wind,  through  the  senses  of  hearing  and  feeling, 
which  we  have  not  of  departed  yet  still  existent  personalities  :  that  is 
the  only  diiference  ;  the  absence  of  physical  certainty  does  not  mili- 
tate against  a  belief  founded  upon  other  testimony  vouchsafed  to  us. 
The  word  'resurrection,'  which  is  rendered  by  Young  'rising 
again,'  obviously  does  not  touch  upon  the  question  of  corporeity  or 
incorporeity  :  for  the  argument  of  Jesus  is,  that  the  mention  of  the 
patriarchs  as  living  after  they  had  died,  is  evidence  of  their  '  resurrec- 
tion '  or  '  rising  again,'  apart  from  any  mention  of  a  bodily  form. 
The  Sadducees  assumed  its  existence  hereafter,  with  all  its  parts  and 
passions.  Modern  teachers  have  gone  to  the  contrary  extreme. 
Strange  ideas  have  prevailed  on  this  subject :  as  that  the  soul 
continues  to  exist,  and  will  remain,  in  an  unbodied  condition,  until  a 
day  of  '  general  resurrection,'  when  it  will  be  reincorporated,  some 
even  have  asserted  with  the  identical  particles  of  matter  which  were 
buried  in  the  grave  !  That  monstrous  conception  is  fading  away,  as 
it  needs  must,  before  the  light  of  Science  and  a  more  rational  inter- 
pretation of  the  Scriptures.  The  words  of  the  Athanasian  Creed 
have  a  doubtful  or  double  meaning  :  '  At  whose  coming,  all  men 
shall  rise  again  with  their  bodies:  and  shall  give  account  for -their 
own  works,'  may  be  understood  to  signify  a  simultaneous  uprising 
from  tombs.  That  wrong  notion  involves  another  :  either  the  inter- 
mediate '  sleep  of  the  soul,'  or  its  continuance  until  the  day  of  judg- 


PART  II.]         A    STUDY    OF    THE    FOUR    GOSPELS.  317 

mcnt  ill  ii  state  of  cliscmbodiment.  Both  ideas  arc  purely  imaginary, 
not  scriptural  revelations,  but  mere  logical  inferences,  the  accuracy 
or  inaccuracy  of  which  depends  on  the  truth  or  error  of  the  i)reinises 
on  which  they  rest.  Theologians  dispute  about  them  among  them- 
selves, as  when  Alford  says,  '  Sticr  remarks  that  this  is  a  weighty 
testimony  against  the  so-called  "sleep  of  the  soul"  in  the  inter- 
mediate kate.'  The  conception  of  a  human  soul  or  life  without  a 
body  may  be  stated  in  words,  as  a  supposition,  but  has  no  foundation 
in  any  fact  within  our  cognizance,  no  analogy  with  anytliing  in  the 
world  in  which  we  live  and  move  and  have  our  being.  Paul  assumed 
that  a  doubt  of  the  resurrection  of  the  dead  involved,  as  a  matter  of 
course,  the  question,  '  AVith  what  manner  of  body  do  they  come  ?  '  i''  >■  <-'ir.  :;.3 
The  resurrection  of  a  man  without  any  of  the  attributes  of  manhood, 
of  a  woman  witliout  any  of  the  distinctions  of  Avomanhood,  of  the 
soul  or  mind  without  any  reassumption  of  a  material  organism  akin 
to  the  brain  through  which  the  iuteUigence  works  and  the  nervous 
system  which  conveys  sensations  :  what  kind  of  'rising  again  '  would 
that  be  ?  How  conceive  it,  ho]ie  for  it,  long  for  it  ?  It  is  as  though 
you  were  to  destroy  a  drum,  and  assert  that  the  instrument  still  exists 
in  the  shapeless  air  which  it  once  held,  and  which  is  now  mingled 
with  the  surrounding  atmosphere.  They  '  are  as  angels  in  heaven.' 
Angels  are  distinct  personalities,  possessing  forms  which  have  been 
rendered  visible  to  mortal  eyes,  and  organs  of  speech  and  touch  which 
have  enables  them  to  hold  intercourse  with  mankind. 

There  are  two  forms  of  expression  :  Mark  :  '  touching  the  dead, 
that  they  are  raised  ; '  Luke  :  '  but  that  the  dead  are  raised.'  That 
is  one  form  ;  the  other  is,  in  Mark  :  '  when  they  shall  rise  fi'om  the 
dead  ; '  in  Luke  :  '  the  resurrection  from  the  dead.'  It  is  the  latter 
which  is  alluded  to  as  a  privilege,  bestowed  upon  those  who  are 
accounted  worthy  to  attain  to  it  and  to  '  that  age.'  The  '  resurrec- 
tion OF  the  dead '  is  equivalent  to  the  statement  that  '  the  dead  are 
raised,'  that  is,  they  are  raised  from  death.  The  '  resurrection  from 
the  dead  '  carries  a  different  meaning.  The  resurrection  of  the  dead 
FROM  DEATH,  amouuts  simply  to  the  fact  that  there  is  a  '  rising 
again.'  The  resurrection  of  the  dead  from  the  dead,  denotes  a 
pre-eminence  granted  to  certain  of  the  dead  above  others  of  the  dead. 
This  distinction  is  more  easily  caught  through  a  language  which 
gives  the  plural  form  to  'the  dead,'  as  the  French  'les  morts'  and 
the  German  '  die  Todten.'  In  common  language,  when  we  speak  of 
'  the  dead  '  we  mean  those  who  have  passed  away  from  the  earthly 
life,  as  though  they  no  longer  existed.  But  the  instant  we  begin  to 
speak  in  faith  of  the  doctrine  of  a  resurrection,  they  are  no  longer 
regarded  as  non-existent,  and  by  '  the  dead'  is  meant  those  who  have 
entered  upon  the  resurrection-life.  Thus  mankind  are  divided  into 
two  classes.  '  the  living '  and  '  the  dead,'  both  equally  alive,  the 
former  here,  the  latter  elsewhere.  A  resurrection  from  the  Uring  is  a 
thing  unheard  of,  except  in  the  cases  of  Enoch  and  Elijah,  but  we 
are  taught  to  expect  a  resurrection  '  from  the  dead,'  which  is  alluded 
to  as  a  similar  translation  to  a  higher  existence,  as  when  Paul 
exclaimed,  '  if  by  any  means  I  may  attain  unto  the  resurrection  from  3  piiii.  n 
the  dead.'  Jesus  Christ  is  styled  '  the  firstborn  from  the  dead  : '  in  1  Coi.  is 
what  sense  ?  Not,  certainly,  that  he  was  the  first  who  had  been 
raised  from  death,  for  we  have  his  own  assurance  that  the  three 


318  THE   KING    AND    THE    KINGDOM:  [part  ii. 

patriarchs  had  been  so  raised,  and  we  are  told  that  Moses  and  Elijah 
15  i.  Cor.  20  conversed  with  him  on  the  mount.    Xeither  is  Jesus  called  '  the  first- 
fruits  of  them  that  are  asleep,'  in  the  sense  of  being  the  first  raised 
from  death  :  for  that  he  was  not,  as  is  proved  by  his  own  argument. 
In  Jewish  language,  a  '  firstborn '  son  was  the  one  exalted  by  his 
father  above  his  brethren  :  Isaac  was  deemed  the  '  firstborn,'  the 
'  only  son,'  although  born  after  Ishmael,     The  'firstfruits  '  were  the 
first-gathered  portion  of  the  liarvest,  reudered  up  as  an  offering  to 
22 Ex.  29      God  :  'Thou  shalt  not  delay  to  offer  of  the  abundance  of  thy  fruits, 
and  of  thy  liquors.     The  firstborn  of  thy  sons  shalt  thou  give  unto 
me.'     Under  both  figures,  Jesus  stands  forth  as  the  representative  of 
1  Col.  18      humanity.     He  '  is  the  beginning,  the   firstborn  from  the   dead  ; ' 
i5i.  Cor.  23  '  Christ  the  firstfruits  ;  then  they  that  are  Christ's,  at  his  coming 
0 John 40      (Gr.  presence).'     In  his  presence,  'beholding  the  Son,  and  believing 
on  him,'  the  perfect  '  will  of  God  '  in  '  sending  him '  will  be  accom- 
plished,  in   'the   resurrection   from   the   dead'  of  those  'that   aro 
Christ's,'  'in  the  last  day.'     The  doctrine  of  the  resurrection,  so  easy 
either  to  deny  or  to  profess,  so  hard  to  understand,  demands  a  more 
careful  and  discriminating  study  than  is  generally  bestowed  upon  it. 

We  are  told  that  the  teaching  of  Jesus  excited  general  astonish- 

2-2  Mat.  33  ment.  '  And  when  the  multitudes  heard  it,  they  were  astonished  ab 
his  teaching.'  He  had  put  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  on  a 
higher  level  of  thought  and  certainty.     The  scribes  also  were  struck 

20Luke3!>    by  thc  uovclty  and  cogency  of  his  argument.     '  And  certain  of  the 
scribes  answering  said,  Master  (or,  Teacher),  thou  hast  well  said." 
His  questioners  felt  that  it  would  be  useless  to  continue  the  discus- 
sion of  a  subject  on  which  he  had  displayed  such  consummate  kiiow- 
,,     40    ledge.    '  For  they  durst  not  any  more  ask  him  any  question.' 

The  news  of  this  intellectual  encounter,  and  of  its   result,  was 
carried  to  the  Pharisees.     Their  opinions  on  the  resurrection  were 

23  Acts  6-s  diametrically  opposed  to  those  of  the  Sadducees.  When  Paul  '  cried 
out  in  the  council,  Brethren,  I  am  a  Pharisee,  a  son  of  Pharisees  : 
touching  the  hope  and  resurrection  of  the  dead  I  am  called  in  ques- 
tion,' there  '  arose  a  dissension  between  the  Pharisees  and  Sadducees  : 
and  the  assembly  was  divided.  For  the  Sadducees  say  that  there  is 
no  resurrection,  neither  angel,  nor  spirit :  but  the  Pharisees  confess 
both.'  It  would  naturally  be  felt  by  the  Pharisees  that  for  the 
Sadducees  to  discuss  with  the  Teacher,  who  was  equally  obnoxious 
to  both  parties,  their  peculiar  and  false  tenet,  was  to  invite  defeat 
and  exalt  the  reputation  of  Jesus,  which  they  were  so  anxious  to  de- 
press.    Therefore  the  Pharisees  assembled  themselves,  doubtless  still 

22  Mat.  r4,  anxious  to  '  ensnare  him  in  his  talk.'  '  But  the  Pharisees,  when  they 
^^  heard  that  he  had  put  the  Sadducees  to  silence,  gathered  themselves 
together.  And  one  of  them,  a  lawyer,  asked  him  a  question,  tempting 
him.'  Mark  does  not  allude  to  the  Pharisees,  but  states  the  fact  that 
this  new  questioner  had  been  present  at  the  previous  discussion,  and 
had  heard  the  convincing  answer  which  had  been  given  by  Jesus  to 

i2M.aik28  the  Sadducees.  'And  one  of  the  scribes  came,  and  heard  them 
questioning  together,  and  knowing  that  he  had  answered  them  well, 
asked  him  .  .  .'  Had  we  Mark's  account  only,  we  should  take  it  for 
granted  that  the  scribe  had  no  bad  motive  in  putting  a  further  ques- 
tion.    Had  we  Matthew's  account  only,  we  should  naturally  assume 


PART  n.]        A    STUDY    OF    THE  FOUR    GOSPELS.  319 

the  contrary.  Alford  appears  to  suppose  that  one  of  the  evangelists 
gives  a  wronji^  colour  to  the  matter,  and  that  we  nuist  choose  which 
of  their  opposite  views  to  take.  He  says  :  '  In  the  more  detailed 
account  of  Mark,  this  ((uestion  does  not  appear  as  that  of  one 
malic  to  i/sl/j  temptin<y  our  Lord  :  and  his  seems  to  me  the  view  to  bo 
taken, — as  there  could  not  be  any  evil  consequences  to  our  Lord, 
whichever  way  he  had  answered  the  question.'  And  again:  'I 
should  be  disposed  to  take  St.  Mark's  as  the  strictly  accurate  account, 
seeing  that  there  is  nothing  in  the  question  which  indicates  enmity, 
and  our  Lord's  answer  (ver.  34)  plainly  precludes  it.  The  man,  from 
hearing  them  disputing,  came  up,  and  formed  one  of  the  band  who 
gathered  together  for  the  purpose  of  tempting  Him.  St.  Mark's 
report  ...  is  that  of  some  one  who  had  taken  accurate  note  of  the 
circumstances  and  character  of  the  man  :  St.  Matthew's  is  more 
general  .  .  .'  There  is  no  reason  for  setting  aside  either  evangelist. 
Lot  us  combine  their  accounts.  It  is  plain  from  Mark  that  the  scribe 
had  listened  to  the  former  argument,  and  recognised  the  sagacity  of 
Jesus.  Probably  his  question  was  spontaneous,  arising  out  of  a 
desire  to  test  the  ability  of  Jesus  further,  and  to  elicit  his  opinion  on 
a  point  much  debated.  That  is  to  adopt  the  idea  of  Alford,  that  the 
question  was  not  put  maliciously,  although  Matthew  describes  it  as 
*  tempting  him.'  The  Greek  verb  here  used,  peirazu,  is  occasionally 
rendered  as  '  prove  '  and  '  try  : '  '  This  he  said  to  prove  him.'  '  Try  o  joim  o 
your  own  selves.'  When  the  Pharisees  who  hnd  not  been  present,  13  li.  coi-.  5- 
l>:it  who,  on  receiving  an  account  of  what  had  passed,  '  gathered 
th-mselves  together,'  as  described  by  Matthew,  this  scribe,  one  of 
their  own  sect,  without  opportunity  for  previous  consultation  with 
them,  put  his  question  to  .Jesus.  He  anticipated  them  :  and  when  he 
had  been  answered,  convinced,  almost  converted,  j\Iark  tells  us  that  ,, 

any  further  questions  they  might  have  formulated  were  put  aside  : 
'  and  no  man  after  that  durst  ask  him  any  question.'  That  observa-  1-2  Mark  34 
tion  indicates  that  there  had  been  an  evident  intention  of  doing  so, 
which  was  followed  by  an  equally  evident  abandonment  of  the  design. 
Thus  viewed  in  conjunction,  the  narratives  harmonise  :  Matthew 
discloses  the  purpose  of  the  Pharisees,  and  Mark  how  it  was  thwarted. 
The  test  question  of  the  scribe  was  innocent  and  harmless,  for  he  had 
cosne  under  the  influence  of  Jesus  ;  and  his  fellow  Pharisees  could  no 
more  escape  that  influence  than  he  had  done.  They  had  resoh-ed  to 
question,  cavil  and  condemn,  but  were  constrained  to  relinquish  their 
purpose,  and  stood  dumfounded  in  the  presence  of  Jesus. 

The  question  was  this  :  '  Master  (or,  Teacher),  which  is  the  great  22  Mat.  scr 
commandment   in   the   law?'     Tischendorf  renders:  'which  com- 
mandment is  great  in  the  law  ?  '     Mark  gives  it  thus  :  '  What  com- 12  Mark  •_>» 
mandmeut  is  the  first  of  all  ? '     In  Matthew  the  reply  of  Jesus  stands 
as  follows  :  '  And  he  said  unto  him.  Thou  shalt  love  the  Lord  thy  -i-i  Mat.  sr 
God  with  all  thy  heart,  and  with  all  thy  soul,  and  with  all  thy  mind. 
Tliis  is  the  great  and  first  commandment.'     The  words  '  great  and 
first '    possibly   indicate   that   both   were   used   by   the   questioner, 
although  Matthew  records  only  the  former  and  Mark  only  the  latter. 
In  Mark  the  reply  is  fuller  :  'Jesus  answered,  The  first' is.  Hear,  0  1-2  Mark  20. 
Israel :  the  Lord  our  God,  the  Lord  is  one  (or,  The  Lord  is  our  God  ;  ^^ 

the  Lord  is  one) :  and  thou  shalt  love  the  Lord  thy  God  with  (Gr. 
from)  all  thy  heart,  and  with  (Gr.  from)  all  thy  soul,  and  with  (Gr. 


320  THE   KING    AND    THE   KINGDOM:  [part  ir. 

from)  all  thy  mind,  and  with  (Gr.  from)  all  thy  strength.'  The 
(rreek  rendered  '  with  '  or  '  from,'  is  en  in  Matthew  and  ex  in  Mark. 
Young  and  Tischendorf  render  the  former  as  '  with  ; '  Young,  the 
latter  as  '  out  of '  and  Tischendorf  as  '  from.'  In  the  Authorised 
Version,  after  the  word  '  first '  are  the  words  '  of  all  the  command- 
ments : '  these  are  now  omitted,  on  the  authority  of  the  two  oldest 
IMSS.     Alford  explains  :  '  St.  Mark  cites  the  passage  entire  : '  that 

«;  Deu.  4, 0  is  not  quite  accurate.  The  passage  stands  as  follows  :  '  Hear,  0 
Israel :  the  Lord  our  (rod  is  one  Lord  :  and  thou  shalt  love  the  Lord 
thy  God  with  all  thy  heart,  and  with  all  thy  soul,  and  with  all  thy 
might.'     In  Mark,  the  words  'and  with  all  thy  mind'  are  added. 

10  Luke  27  The  Same  addition  is  made  on  another  occasion,  the  extra  words 
being  there  placed  last,  and  quoted  by  a  lawyer.  That  first  command 
was  comprehensive  in  the  extreme,  and  Jesus  pointed  out  that  there 

■2-2  Mat.  39  Avas  auothcr  of  the  same  character.  '  And  a  second  like  toito  it  is 
this  (or,  And  a  second  is  like  unto  it),  Thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbour 

rj  Mark  31  ^8  thyself.'  Mark:  'The  second  is  this,  Thou  shalt  love  thy 
neighbour  as  thyself.'     There  was  nothing  original  or  novel  in  this 

10  Luke  27  reply  of  Jesus  :  those  two  commands  Avere  likewise  placed  in  con- 
junction by  a  lawyer,  as  containing  a  summary  of  human  duties. 
Jesus  heartily  concurred  in  that  view  :  Avhen  put  forth  by  another, 
„     28    he  said,  '  Thou  hast  answered  right,'  and  now  he  adopts  it  as  his 

22  Mat.  40  owu,  adding,  '  On  these  two  commandments  hangeth  the  whole  law, 
and   the  prophets.'     Instead   of  that,  Mark   reports   the   following 

12  Mark  31  words  :  '  There  is  no  other  commandment  greater  than  these.'  lb 
may  bo  safely  assumed  that  both  observations  were  made  by  Jesus. 
That  we  have  two  independent  accounts,  is  evident  from  the  fact 
that  w^hile  ]\Iatthew  ends  at  this  point  Mark  proceeds.  Jesus  and 
„  32, 33  his  questioner  were  at  one  on  the  matter.  '  And  the  scribe  said  unto 
him.  Of  a  truth,  Master  (or.  Teacher),  thou  hast  well  said  that  he  is 
one  ;  and  there  is  none  other  but  he  :  and  to  love  him  with  all  the 
heart,  and  with  all  the  understanding,  and  with  all  the  strength,  and 
to  love  his  neighbour  as  himself,  is  much  more  than  all  whole  burnt 
offerings  and  sacrifices.'  The  Authorised  Version  has  :  '  for  there  is 
one  God,'  which  is  now  altered  to,  '  that  he  is  one,'  on  the  authority 
of  the  three  oldest  ]\ISS.,  but  Tischendorf  renders,  '  that  there  is  one,' 
the  literal  translation  being  '  that  one  is.'  After  '  understanding ' 
the  Authorised  Version  has,  '  and  with  all  thy  soul,'  which  is  now 
omitted  in  accordance  with  the  two  oldest  MSS.  The  Revisers  have 
inserted  '  much '  before  '  more,'  wdiich  is  a  reading  adopted  by 
Tischendorf  and  Tregellcs.  The  word  '  with,'  ex,  is  rendered  by 
Young  '  out  of '  and  by  Tischendorf  '  from.'  Instead  of '  all  whole 
burnt  offerings  and  sacrifices,'  Young  and  Tischendorf  render, 
literally,  '  all  the  whole  burnt  offerings  and  the  sacrifices,'  which 
gives  a  definitencss  wanting  in  the  Authorised  and  Revised  Versions, 
and  brings  out  a  contrast  between  the  ceremonial  and  the  moral  i-e- 
quirements  of  the  law.  That  was  a  splendid  generalization,  bold  and 
wise,  made  by  this  scribe,  and  it  afforded  Jesus  a  favourable  insight 
of  his  character.  A  mind  of  that  stamp  was  well  fitted  to  embrace 
the  whole  doctrine  of  Jesus,  and  the  man  stood  upon  the  threshold 

ii;  Mark  34  of  God's  kingdom.  '  And  when  Jesus  saw"  that  he  answered  dis- 
creetly, he  said  unto  him.  Thou  art  not  far  from  the  kingdom  of 
of  God.' 


PART  II.]        A    STUDY    OF    THE    FOUR    GOSPELS.  321 

According-  to  Matthew,  the  reply  of  Jesus  alluded  to  tlie  heart, 
soul  and  mind  ;  according  to  Mark,  to  the  heart,  soul,  mind  aud 
strength:  the  word  'mind'  not  being  found  in  the  original  com- 
mand. The  scribe  spoke  of  the  heart,  understanding,  and  strength. 
These  divergences  are  suggestive.  Obviously  not  the  bare  words  of 
the  original,  but  the  sense  of  them,  was  most  cared  for.  In  the 
course  of  centuries  some  words  become  changed  in  meaning  ;  with 
the  progress  of  thought  shades  of  difl'erence  become  noticeable  which 
at  first  were  overlooked  ;  and  sometimes  two  words  may  be  required 
to  convey  the  full  import  covered  jH'imarily  by  one  word.  This  may 
have  been  the  case  with  the  word  'soul.'  Originally  the  heart  and 
soul  may  have  been  understood  to  comprehend  all  the  moral  and 
intellectual  faculties,  but  gradually  '  soul '  became  applied  if  not 
restricted  to  '  life,'  the  latter  word  standing  as  its  equivalent  in  the 
New  Testament.  If  such  was  the  case,  Jewish  doctors  did  well  to 
introduce  the  word  '  mind,'  thereby  bringing  out  the  full  and  proper 
sense  of  the  commandment.  Jesus  himself  followed  that  practice. 
In  the  same  spirit  the  scribe  preferred  to  use  the  word  '  understand- 
ing,' instead  of  '  soul '  and  '  mind,'  that  term  being  inclusive  of  the 
two  words.  The  object  aimed  at  in  such  emendations  was  the  com- 
plete and  accurate  rendering  of  the  original  passage.  There  is  the 
same  need  in  our  own  day  for  verbal  additions  and  amendments, 
especially  having  regard  to  the  translations  from  Hebrew  and  Greek 
into  modern  languages.  Even  with  respect  to  our  creeds  the  necessity 
is  felt  and  acknowledged.  The  words  '  hell,'  '  quick  '  and  '  catholic  ' 
carry  other  meanings  than  those  current  in  ordinary  speech.  The 
terms  '  substance,'  '  incomprehensible,'  '  begotten,'  also  need  to  be 
discriminated  aud  explained.  The  same  care  is  required  in  the  inter- 
pretation of  certain  Scriptural  expressions.  Whoever  would  expound 
them  rightly  must  be  at  the  pains  of  retranslating  or  modifying 
them.  The  sense  of  the  word  '  church  '  is  lost  or  perverted  unless  it 
be  rendered  '  assembly.'  '  Eternal '  and  '  everlasting '  are  best  repre- 
sented by  '  age-during.'  '  Hell '  involves  a  distinction  between 
'  hades  '  and  '  Gehenna.'  '  Soul '  is  often  interchangeable  with 
'  life  ; '  and  the  Hebrew  expression  '  only  begotten  Son  '  carries  a 
meaning  not  generally  borne  in  mind.  Dr.  Robert  Young  has  done 
good  service  in  this  direction  by  his  literal  and  idiomatic  translation 
of  the  Bible.  It  would  obviate  error  and  promote  the  truth,  if  others 
would  follow  his  example.  The  theory  about  verbal  inspiration  has 
stood  in  the  way.  Men  have  been  afraid  to  touch  a  Bible-word,  and 
the  mistakes  and  imperfections  of  translators  have  been  held  as 
sacred  as  the  book  itself.  How  diiferent  this  servile  spirit  from  that 
of  the  Jews,  who  grasped  the  fact  that  the  command  to  love  God 
embraced  man's  whole  nature,  and  who  therefore  did  not  scruple  to 
insert  the  word  '  mind,'  or,  having  done  so,  to  use  the  word  '  under- 
standing '  as  its  equivalent.  Accuracy  of  thought  is  not  secured, 
but  rather  endangered,  by  a  rigid  adherence  to  set  forms  of  speech. 
The  recorders  of  our  Lord's  sayings  seem  to  have  been  more  careful 
to  convey  his  meaning  than  his  precise  words,  so  that  often  we  find 
them  using  different  modes  of  expression,  leaving  us  in  doubt  which 
of  them,  or  whether  both,  actually  fell  from  the  lips  of  Jesus.  There 
is  an  instance  of  this  now  before  us.  Matthew  uses  the  word  eyi 
where  Mark  uses  the  word  ex.    The  Eevisers  merely  point  out  this 


323  THE   KING   AND    THE   KINGDOM:  [pakt  ii. 

difference  by  a  marginal  note  in  Mark,  indicatino;  that  the  proper 
translation  is  '  from,'  not  '  with,'  but  Young  and  Tischendorf  retain 
throughout  the  passage  in  Mark  '  from '  or  '  out  of.'  One  of  the 
objects  aimed  at  by  Dr.  Young  in  his  version,  was  to  avoid  such 
different  renderings  of  tlie  same  original  word,  and  he  gives  in  his 
'  General  Preface  to  the  New  Translation '  some  striking  examples  of 

*  the  lax  renderings  of  king  James'  Revisers.'  For  instance  :  the 
Hebrew  word  nathan,  '  to  give,'  is  rendered  by  84  English  words  and 
idioms  ;  asah,  '  to  do,'  by  7-4,  and  so  on.  The  best  translation  is 
that  which  adheres  most  closely  to  the  original  and  varies  as  little  as 
possible  the  rendering  of  a  particular  word. 

That  the  love  of  God  enjoined  by  the  commandment  is  much  more 
than  a  mere  sentiment,  is  evident  from  the  expression  '  from  all  thy 
heart,  and  from  all  thy  soul,  and  from  all  thy  mind,  and  from  all  thy 
strength.'  We  are  too  much  accustomed  to  regard  love  to  God  as 
simply  a  mental,  spiritual  emotion,  a  feeling  of  devout  veneration  and 
affection.  That  is  to  mistake  the  foundation  for  the  building,  the 
seed  for  its  fi-uit,  the  bare  ground  for  the  crop  which  grows  upon  it. 
Love  is  the  active  operation  of  every  attribute  and  power  we  possess  ; 
it  is  the  putting  forth  of  all  our  moral,  mental  and  physical  energies 
towards  and  on  behalf  of  the  Being  we  adore.  Be  it  observed  also 
that  the  command  is  not  merely,   '  Thou  shalt  love  Jehovah,'  but 

*  Thou  shalt  love  the  Lord  thy  God,'  bringing  out  that  relationship 
between  him  and  us,  he  our  ruler,  we  his  subjects.  It  is  equivalent 
to,  'Thou  shalt  love  thy  sovereign  Lord  and  King.'  Loyal  and 
submissive,  having  regard  in  all  things  to  his  supremacy,  our  faculties 
bent  to  his  will,  and  our  activities  enlisted  in  his  service  :  that  is  the 
love  we  owe  to  God.  The  name  by  which  we  know  him  cannot  be 
dissociated  from  rulership,  and  our  allegiance  must  wait  upon  his 
bidding.  Again  :  the  word  '  thy '  here  denotes,  not  individualism 
but  nationality,  as  is  evident  from  the  preface,  '  Hear,  0  Israel,  the 
Lord  our  God,  the  Lord  is  one  :  and  thou  shalt  love  the  Lord  thy 
God.'  The  intelligence  and  fortitude  of  the  entire  nation  were 
demanded  for  the  service  and  praise  of  that  God  who  had  chosen 

14  Den.  2  Israel '  to  be  a  peculiar  people  unto  himself,  out  of  all  peoples  that 
are  upon  the  face  of  the  earth.'  This  divine  command  was  addressed 
to  the  community,  not  to  each  man  individually,  promulgated  to  the 
people  generally,  yet  not  on  that  account  less  incumbent  on  all  and 
each.  The  idea  of  duty  restricted  to  individual  obedience  or  dis- 
obedience, resulting  in  mere  personal  salvation  or  condemnation,  is 
too  narrow,  too  selfish,  too  egotistical.     The  apostle  Paul  insisted 

14  Bom.  7,  s  upon  that  truth,  asserting  that '  none  of  us  liveth  to  himself,  and  none 
dietli  to  himself.  For  whether  we  live,  we  live  unto  the  Lord,  or 
whether  we  die,  we  die  unto  the  Lord  ;  whether  we  live  therefore,  or 
die,  we  are  the  Lord's.'  Is  not  that  precisely  the  same  obligation  as 
was  set  forth  in  the  words,  '  Hear,  0  Israel,  the  Lord  our  God,  the 
Lord  is  one  :  and  thou  shalt  love  the  Lord  thy  God.'  Devotion  to 
God  is  not  a  mere  personal  concern,  and  the  love  he  demands  of  us 

jude  3         has  no  scope  for  action  apart  from  the  grand  cause  of  '  our  common 

2  Eph.  12  salvation.'  Only  as  a  member  of  '  the  commonwealth  of  Israel '  was 
a  Jew  bound  or  able  to  manifest  his  love  to  the  Lord  God  of  Israel ; 
and  only  as  we  belong  to  the  true  '  Israel,' — the  word  denoting 
'  soldier  or  contender  of  God,' — can  the  heart,  soul,  mind  and  strength 


PART  11.]        A    STUDY    OF    THE    FOUR    GOSPELS.  323 

of  any  one  of  us  show  forth  love  to  our  Lord  God.     The  Scriptures 
define  love  as  active  and  willing  service  :  '  This  is  the  love  of  (iod,  oi.  joim:} 
that  we  keep  his  commandments  :  and  his  commandments  are  not 
grievous.'     The  love  of  God  is  more  than  morality,  just  as  the  love  of 
our  neighbour  is  more  than  common  justice.      Love   stands  on  a 
higher  platform  of  obligation  than  simple  obedience  and  rectitude.    It 
opens  out  a  fuller,  ampler  life,  a  wider  sphere  of  activity.     It  is  one 
thing  to  say,  '  All  these  things  have  I  kept  from  my  youth  up  ; '  it  is 
quite  another  and  loftier  thing  to  say,  'The  love  of  (Jod  hath  been  5 Rom. r. 
shed  abroad  in  our  hearts  through  the  Holy  Spirit  which  was  given 
unto  us.'     The  former  carries  us  no  further  than  the  desponding 
question,  '  What  lack  I  yet  ? '     The  latter  leads  up  to  the  joyous 
exclamation,  '  The  love  of  Christ  constraineth  us;  because  we  thus  s  ii.  Coi.  u, 
judge,  that  one  died  for  all,  therefore  all  died  ;  and  he  died  for  all,  ' ' 

that  they  which  live  should  no  longer  live  unto  themselves,  but  unto 
him  who  for  their  sakes  died  and  rose  again.'  The  utterance  of  love 
is  not  for  every  lip,  the  ambition  and  hope  of  love  are  not  for  every 
mind  and  heart.  Love  to  God  is  the  perfection  of  manhood,  engaged 
in  the  service  of  humanity.  It  is  '  the  first  commandment  of  all,'  not 
meaning  thereby  the  foremost  in  point  of  time,  for  we  attain  to  it  last 
of  all,  but  first  in  rank  and  perfection, — '  the  great  and  first  com- 
mandment.' It  is  easy  to  adopt  the  cant  of  religious  phraseology,  to 
talk  and  sing  about  our  love  to  God,  to  persuade  ourselves  that  it 
resides  in  our  emotional  faculties,  and  floats  heavenwards  in  ecstasies 
of  prayer  and  praise  :  it  is  something  far  more  real  and  substantial ; 
it  involvestheabnegatiouof  self  and  the  world,  and  devotion  to  Christ 
and  the  kingdom  of  heaven  ;  and  only  in  proportion  as  we  have  the 
Spirit  of  Christ  can  we  possess  the  love  of  God.  Who  among  us  caa 
lay  claim  to  it  ?  Not  all,  certaiuly  ;  not  many,  probably.  They  are 
few  who  rise  to  the  height  of  the  '  great  and  first  commandment ; ' 
but  there  are  none  of  us  who  cannot,  if  we  will,  place  our  hands  upon 
the  second  like  unto  it, '  Thou  shall  love  thy  neighbour  as  thyself.' 
Only  through  the  lower  can  we  hope  to  reach  the  higher,  '  for  he  that  •*  >•  J"i'i>  J' 
loveth  not  his  brother  whom  he  hath  seen,  cannot  love  God  whom  he 
hath  not  seen  ; '  and  when,  climbing  upwards  on  the  love  of  man  to 
the  love  of  God,  we  have  attained  to  the  summit  of  Christian  perfect- 
ness,  it  will  be  to  realise  the  grand  truth  that  the  love  of  God  is  the  love 
of  Jesus,  and  the  love  of  Jesus  is  the  love  of  man,  for  '  this  command-  „  ji 
ment  have  we  fi'om  him,  that  he  who  loveth  God  love  his  brother  also.' 

The  Pharisees  who  had  assembled  round  Jesus  showing  no  further 
inclination  to  question  him,  he  took  the  opportunity  of  putting  a 
question  to  them.    '  Now  while  the  Pharisees  were  gathered  together,  n  Mat.  41,  ^ 
Jesus  asked  them  a  question,  saying.  What  think  ye  of  the  Christ  ? 
whose  son  is  he  ? '     There  was  no  hesitation  or  doubt  about  their 
reply.     '  They  say  unto  him,  The  son  of   David.'     Jesus  had  been      „     vi 
often  greeted  by  that  title,  which  can-ied  with  it  more  than  the  idea 
of  mere  descent,  according  to  the  popular  notion.   The  Jews  cherished 
the  hope  of  a  temporal  I^Iessiah,  and  were  ready  enough  to  hail  Jesus 
as  such,  and  to  cry  out,  '  Blessed  is  the  kingdom  that  cometh,  the  11  Mark  10 
kingdom  of  our  father  David,'      The  expression  '  our  father,'  not 
*  his  father,'  indicates  that  the  terms  '  father  '  and  '  son  '  were  taken 
generally  in  a  broader  sense  than  with  us.     We  use  the  words 

Y    2 


324  THE   KING    AND    THE    KINGDOM:  [part  ii. 

*  fathers,'  '  forefathers '  in  the  same  way,  but  the  singular  form, 
'father'  or  'forefather'  is  restricted  by  us  to  natural  kinship. 
Those  who  welcomed  Jesus  as  '  son  of  David '  must  have  done  so 
without  any  evidence  of  his  pedigree  ;  tliey  did  not  wait  or  care  to 
trace  up  his  genealogy,  before  offering  him  their  homage  under  that 
title. 

Taking  up  the  answer  of  the  Pharisees,  Jesus  enquired  how  they 
would  reconcile  their  conception  of  the  Messiah's  sonship  to  David, 
with  that  lordship  of  the  Christ  to  which  David  had  acknowledged 
•22  Mat.  43-   himsclf  to   bc   subjected.     '  He  saith  unto  them,  How  then  doth 
■^^  David  in  the  Spirit  call  him.  Lord,  saying. 
The  Lord  said  unto  my  Lord, 
Sit  thou  on  my  right  hand, 
Till  I  put  thine  enemies  underneath  thy  feet  ? 
If  David  then  calleth  him  Lord,  how  is  he  his  son  ?  ' 

The  '  Psalm  of  David  '  begins  in  the  Kevised  Vei'sion  as  follows  : 
110  Ps.  1  '  The  Lord  saith  unto  my  lord,  Sit  thou  at  my  right  hand. 

Until  I  make  thine  enemies  thy  footstool.' 
A  careful  reader  may  observe  that  the  second  '  lord  '  is  without  a 
capital  letter,  therein  differing  from  the  Authorised  Version  ;  but  a 
quick  and  critical  eyesight  is  needed  to  take  note  of  the  fact  that  the 
tirst '  Lord '  is  in  somewhat  different  type,  all  the  letters  being  small 
capitals.    A  person  hearing  the  verse  read  could  not  possibly  imagine 
these  differences  existed  ;  and  those  who  are  painstaking  enough  to 
detect  them  on  perusal  are  left  without  a  clue  to  their  significance. 
If  one  happens  to  have  read  the  Revisers'  lengthy  '  Preface,'  and  to 
remember  the  various  explanations  therein  given,  he  will  understand 
the  reason  and  meaning  of  this  capitalisation  of  the  word  '  Lord.' 
The  Revisers  explain  :  '  It  has  been  thought  advisable  in  regard  to 
the  word  "  Jehovah  "  to  follow  the  usage  of  the  Authorised  Version, 
and  not  to  insert  it  uniformly  in  place  of  "  Lord  "  or  "  God,"  which 
when  printed  in  small  capitals  represent  the  words  substituted  by 
Jewish  custom  for  the  ineffable  Name  according  to  the  vowel  points 
by  which  it  is  distinguished.     It  will  be  found  therefore  that  in  this 
respect  the  Authorised  Version  has  been  departed  from  only  in  a  few 
passages,  in  which  the  introduction  of  a  proper  name  seemed  to  be 
required.'     That  opens  our  eyes  to  the  fact,  doubtless  new  to  most  of 
us,  that  the  same  small  capitalisation  of  the  words  '  Lord '  and  '  God ' 
has   ahvays   existed   in  the   Authorised  Version.     If  any  ordinary 
reader  ever  observed  it,  he  would  find  nothing  whatever  to  indicate  a 
connection  with  the  word  '  Jehovah,'  for  the  Dedication  to  King 
James  in  the  Authorised  Version,  beginning  :  '  Great  and  manifold 
■were  the  blessings,  most  dread  Sovereign,  which  Almighty  God,  the 
Father  of  all  mercies,  bestowed  upon  us  the  people  of  England,  when 
first  he  sent  Your  Majesty's  Royal  Person  to  rule  and  reign  over  us,-' 
— that  Preface  enters  into  no  particulars  as  to  the  mode  and  method 
of  the  translation.     Now  if  we  turn  to  the  Prayer  Book  Version  of 
the  Psalms,  which  is  a  still  older  translation,  we  find  no  capitalisa- 
tion of  the  word  '  Lord  : '  that  was  a  step,  halt-hearted  and  ineffec- 
tive, taken  by  King  James'  translators,  not  towards  absolute  accuracy, 
but  towards  an  indication  that  a  perfect  and  proper  rendering  had 
not  been  attempted  either  by  their  predecessors  or  themselves.     And 
now,  270  years  later,  the  Revisers  frankly  tell  us  that  they  delibe- 


PART  II.]         A    STUDY   OF    THE   FOUR    GOSPELS.  325 

lately  decided  to  go  no  further  in  the  direction  of  a  true  and  literal 
rendering.     '  It  lias  been  tiiouglit  advisable  '  not  to  render  the  word 

*  Jehovah '  as  Jehovah,  but  instead  thereof  to  put  another  word  in 
small  capitals  ;  and  for  this  no  better  reason  is  assigned  than  that 
others  did  so  before  them  !  In  this  passage  Dr.  Young's  version, 
stands  : 

'  Jehovah  *  affirmeth  to  my  Lord  : 

Sit  at  my  right  hand, 

Till  I  make  thine  enemies  thy  footstool.' 
But  on  this  point  even  Dr.  Young  has  been  inconsistent,  picking  and 
choosing  for  himself,  sometimes  inserting  Jehovah,  but  generally 
replacing  that  word,  after  the  fashion  of  the  Authorised  Version,  by 
*Lord,'  only  in  larger  capitals,  without  a  hint  in  his  preface  of  what 
they  signify.  Considerations  of  expediency  are  out  of  place  in  the 
work  of  translating  the  Scriptures.  We  do  not  want  to  know  what 
any  theologian,  or  body  of  theologians,  may  consider  '  advisable  '  in 
the  way  of  adhering  to  former  errors  or  imperfections  of  rendei'ing, 
but  to  have  placed  before  us  the  nearest  possible  apjwoach  to  a  literal 
translation.  That  no  difficulty  stands  in  the  way  of  a  scholar  who  is 
entirely  free  from  the  trammels  of  conventionality,  with  respect  to 
the  rendering  of  the  word  'Jehovah,'  is  proved  by  Samuel  Sharpe's 
translation  of  the  Scriptures  from  Van  der  Hooght's  edition  of  the 
Hebrew  Bible  printed  in  Amsterdam  in  1705.     The  Preface  states  : 

*  The  aim  of  the  Translator  has  been  to  shew  in  the  Text,  by  greater 
exactness,  those  pecidiarities  which  others  have  been  content  to  point 
out  in  Notes  and  Commentaries.'  Accordingly,  in  Samuel  Sharpe's 
Version  there  is  no  capitalisation  of  the  words  '  God  '  and  '  Lord,'  but 
a  constant  use  of  the  name  'Jehovah.'  Take  this  110th  Psalm  as  an 
example.  Verse  1.  'Jehovah  said  to  my  Lord;  2.  Jehovah  will 
send  the  sceptre  of  thy  power  out  of  Zion  ;  4.  Jehovah  hath  sworn  ; ' 
but  in  verse  5  it  is  '  the  Lord,'  not  '  Jehovah,'  removing  an  obscurity 
needlessly  introduced  to  the  puzzlement  of  simple  English  readers. 
Turning  page  after  page  of  Sharpe's  translation,  the  word  '  Jehovah ' 
meets  the  eye,  so  that  one  can  only  wonder  why  it  has  been  so  syste- 
matically kept  out  by  others.  The  exclusion  begins  with  verse  4  of 
the  2nd  chapter  of  G-enesis,  which  Sharpe  renders  :  '  This  is  the 
birth-book  of  the  heavens  and  of  the  earth  when  they  were  created, 
in  the  day  that  Jehovah  God  made  the  earth  and  the  heavens.'  Up 
to  the  end  of  the  4th  chapter  the  terms  'Jehovah  God'  and  'Jehovah' 
are  used,  whereas  in  the  1st  chapter  the  word  '  God '  is  used  through- 
out.    In  the  5th  chapter  'God'  again  recurs,  but  in  the  29th  verse 

*  Jehovah '  is  the  word  used.  These  distinctions  in  the  original  are 
by  no  means  unimportant,  and  whoever  would  get  at  the  true  sense 
of  these  ancient  records  must  resort  to  versions  which  bring  out  their 
variations  clearly,  rather  than  trust  to  a   Version,  however   much 

*  Eevised,'  which  persistently  fails  to  do  so.  To  print  always  a 
wrong  word,  but  in  different  type,  is  not  equivalent  to  giving  the 
correct  word.     From  the  observation  of  the  Revisers  it  appears  that 

*  A  careful  and  esteemed  critic,  on  reading  the  author's  ]\IS.,  has  called 
attention  to  the  fact  that  the  'word  "  Jehovah  "  itself  is  the  result  of  combining 
the  true  consonants  with  false  vowels,  and  therefore  "  a  mongrel  or  fantaatic 
word" — "a  mere  makeshift."  Gesenius's  Heb.  Gram.  tr.  by  Dr.  B.  Davies 
(Asher  &  Co.),  pp.  52,  230,  356  :  cf.  Spottiswoode's  Variorum  Bible,  on  Ex.  iii. 
and  \'i.' 


d26'  THE   KING    AND   THE   KINGDOM:  [part  it. 

Jehovah  '  stands  in  place  of  the  ineffable  Name,' a 'proper  name ' 
belonging  to  the  Deity.  Has  the  word  a  definable  meaning  ?  and  if 
so,  does  it  signify  '  Lord  '  or  '  God  ?  '  Nuttall's  Dictionary  gives  the 
following  definition  :  '  Jehovah.  God  as  related  to  the  Jew  (literally, 
the  self-existent  and  eternal,  from  Heb.  hat/ah,  to  be).'     The  follow- 

3  Ex.  14, 15  ing  passage  in  the  Revised  Version  accords  with  this :  'And  God  said 
unto  Moses,  I  am  that  I  am  (Or,  I  am,  because  I  am,  Or,  I  am  who 
am,  Or,  I  will  be  that  I  will  be)  :  and  he  said,  Thus  shalt  thou  say 
unto  the  children  of  Israel,  I  am  (Or,  I  will  be,  Heb,  Ehyeli)  hath 
sent  me  unto  you.  And  God  said  moreover  unto  Moses,  Thus  shalt 
thou  say  unto  the  children  of  Israel,  The  Lord  (Heb.  Jehovah,  from 
the  same  root  as  Ehyeh),  the  God  of  your  fathers,  the  God  of 
Abraham,  the  God  of  Isaac,  and  the  God  of  Jacob,  hath  sent  me  unto 
you.'  There  is  therefore  a  relationship  between  'I  am'  and 'Jehovah' 
and  the  root  of  the  latter  word  has  reference  to  existence.  '  The  name 
Jehovah  is  formed  from  the  Hebrew  word  which  signifies  to  he,  in  its 
various  inflections  of  am  or  is,  was  and  will  le.'  It  would  seem, 
therefore,  that  if  '  Jehovah  '  is  translated  it  must  be  by  some  such 
equivalent  as  '  existing,'  '  living,'  or  '  eternal.'  To  render  it  by 
'  Lord '  or  '  God '  appears  to  be  improper,  and  sometimes  tautological. 
The  expression  '  Lord  God '  is  tantamount  to  '  God  God,'  whereas 
'  Jehovah  God  '  or  '  living  God  '  is  correct  in  form  and  sense.     This 

6  Ex.  -2, 3  is  borne  out  by  the  following  passage  :  '  And  God  spake  unto  Moses, 
and  said  unto  him,  I  am  Jehovah  :  and  I  appeared  unto  Abraham, 
unto  Isaac,  and  unto  Jacob,  as  God  Almighty  (Heb.  El  Shaddai),  but 
by  (or,  as  to)  my  name  Jehovah  I  was  not  known  (or,  made  known) 
to  them.'  It  is  therefore  obvious  that  '  God  '  and  '  Jehovah '  are  not 
synonymous  terms,  and  as  '  God '  and  '  Lord '  are  synonymous, 
neither  of  them  can  properly  be  used  in  place  of '  Jehovah.'  Sharpe's 
rendering  brings  this  out  clearly  :  '  And  God  spake  to  Moses,  and 
said  to  him,  I  am  Jehovah.  And  I  appeared  to  Abraham,  to  Isaac, 
and  to  Jacob,  as  El  (or,  God)  Almighty,  but  by  my  name  Jehovah 
was  I  not  known  to  them.'  There  are  passages  which,  as  rendered 
by  Sharpe,  indicate  a  connection  in  Jewish  minds  between  the  word 

5  Deu.  2C  '  Jehovah  '  and  the  word  '  living.'  '  If  we  hear  the  voice  of  Jehovah 
our  God  any  more,  then  we  shall  die.  For  who  is  there  of  all  flesh, 
that  hath  heard  the  voice  of  the  living  God  speaking  out  of  the  midst 

17  i.  Sain.  30,  of  the  fire,  as  we  have,  and  hath  lived?'  Again:  'Thy  servant 
^"  slew  both  the  lion  and  the  bear.  And  this  uncircumcised  Philistine 
shall  be  as  one  of  them,  seeing  he  hath  defied  the  army  of  the  living 
God.  David  said  moreover,  Jehovah,  who  delivered  me  out  of  the 
paw  of  the  lion,  and  out  of  the  paw  of  the  bear,  he  will  deliver  me 
out  of  the  hand  of  this  Phihstine.  And  Saul  said  to  David,  Go,  and 
may  Jehovah  be  with  thee.'  Many  of  the  Psalms  assume  a  different 
complexion  when  the  word  '  Jehovah '  is  introduced  as  the  proper 
name  of  the  Deity,  and  is  not  confused  with  the  word  '  God '  or 
'Lord.'  Take  as  an  example  Sharpe's  version  of  the  following 
Psalm. 

'  I  waited  patiently  for  Jehovah. 

And  put  into  my  mouth  a  new  song  of  praise  to  our  God. 
Many  will  see  it,  and  fear,  and  Avill  trust  in  Jehovah. 
Blessed  is  the  man  that  maketh  Jehovah  his  trust. 
Many  works  hast  thou  done,  0  Jehovah,  my  God. 
I  delight  to  do  thy  will,  0  my  God. 


40  Ps.  1 
„      3 


PART  II.]        A    STUDY    OF    THE    FOUR    GOSPELS.  327 

Lo,  I  hiive  not  closed  my  lips,  0  Jehovah,  thou  knowest.  40  r.s.  9 

Withhold  not,  0  Jehovah,  thy  tender  mercies  from  me.  „    n 

Be  pleased,  0  Jehovah,  to  deliver  rae  ;  „    13 

0  Jehovah,  make  haste  to  help  me. 

May  Jehovah  be  magnified.  „    10 

But  1  am  poor  and  needy,  yet  the  Lord  thinketh  on  me.  17 

Tarry  not,  0  my  Cxod.' 
The  translation  of  .Jehovah  by  '  Lord '  is  not  confined  to  the 
English  version.  Luther  habitually  rendered  it  in  the  same  way. 
For  instance  :  in  the  2nd  chapter  of  Genesis  Sharpe  repeatedly  intro- 
duces 'Jehovah  God,'  which  is  rendered  by  'Gott  der  Herr,  God  the 
Lord,'  and  '  Jehovah '  by  itself  is  represented  by  '  Herr,  Lord.'  But 
then  Luther  is  consistent,  and  avoids  altogether  the  word  '  .Jehovah,' 
even  in  the  crucial  passage  which  has  been  considered,  which  he 
renders  as  follows  :  '  IJnd  Gott  redete  mit  Mose,  und  sjirach  zu  ihm  :  cex.  2,3 
Ich  bin  der  Herr.  Und  bin  erschieuen  Abraham,  Isaak  und  Jacob, 
dass  ich  ihr  allmilchtiger  Gott  sein  Avollte  ;  aber  mein  Name,  Herr, 
ist  ihnen  nicht  geoflfenbaret  worden  : '  '  And  God  spoke  with  Moses, 
and  said  to  him,  I  am  the  liOrd.  And  have  appeared  to  Abraham, 
Isaac  and  Jacob,  that  I  would  be  their  almighty  God ;  but  my  name, 
Lord,  was  not  revealed  to  them.'  Obviously  Luther  made  no  attempt 
either  to  disclose  the  name  '  Jehovah,'  or  to  coin  a  word  in  place  of 
it,  but  arbitrarily  adopted  as  its  representative,  not  as  its  equivalent, 
the  word  '  Herr,'  which  conveys  the  same  meaning  as  '  Lord '  in 
English.  This  imperfection  in  their  own  translation  was  recognised 
by  Iving  James'  Revisers,  who  called  attention  to  it,  and  indicated 
that  there  was  something  beyond  the  common  meaning  to  be  attached 
to  the  word  '  Lord  '  wherever  they  caused  it  to  be  printed  in  small 
capitals.  That  is  no  sufficient  guide  to  the  sense  of  the  original,  and 
the  constant  use  of  a  wrong  word,  however  distinguished  in  type,  can 
only  mislead  ordinary  readers.  The  marginal  notes  now  thrown  in 
are  important,  and  a  careful  student  of  the  Scriptures  must  needs 
feel  grateful  for  them  ;  but  it  is  much  to  be  regretted  that  Dr. 
Robert  Young  and  our  Revisers  did  not  go  further  in  the  way  of 
correction,  and  that  the  bent  of  their  minds  led  them  to  acquiesce  iu 
the  mistake  of  former  translators,  and  to  perpetuate  the  banishment 
of  the  name  '  Jehovah,'  wherever  possible,  from  the  English  Bible. 
The  '  Appendix  '  placed  at  the  end  of  the  Revised  Version  of  the 
Old  Testament  shows  that  the  American  Old  Testament  Revision 
Company  protested  against  the  omission  of  the  word  '  Jehovah.' 
Their  note  to  that  effect  stands  foremost,  and  is  as  follows  :  '  Substi- 
tute the  Divine  name  "  Jehovah  "  wherever  it  occurs  in  the  Hebrew 
text,  for  "  the  Lord  "  and  "  God  "  and  omit  the  marg.  to  "  the 
Lord  "  at  Gen.  ii.  4,  and  " Heb.  Jehovah'''  from  the  marg,  at  Ex.  iii.  15, 
also  substitute  "  Jehovah  "  for  "  the  Lord  "  or  *'  Jah  "  wherever  the 
latter  occurs  in  the  Hebrew  text,  and  retain  or  insert  "  Heb.  Jah  "  in 
the  marg.  ;  where  "  Jehovah  "  immediately  follows,  viz.,  in  Is.  xii.  2, 
xxvi.  4,  read  "  Jehovah  even  Jehovah  "  and  omit  "  Jehovah  "  from 
the  marg.' 

The  Pharisees  were  baffled  by  the  question  of  .Jesus,  being  unable  to 
attempt  any  solution  of  the  difficulty  he  had  raised.  Their  dis- 
comfiture had  a  wholesome  effect,  and  deterred  all  others  thenceforth 
from  interrupting  his  course  of  teaching  by  pestering  him  with  hard 


328  THE    KING    AND    THE   KINGDOM:  [part  ii. 

22  Mat.  46  questions,  *  And  no  one  was  able  to  answer  him  a  word,  neither 
durst  any  man  from  that  day  forth  ask  him  any  more  questions.' 
Having  failed  to  elicit  an  explanation  from  the  Pharisees,  Jesus 
12  Mark  35-  referred  the  same  enquiry  to  his  hearers  generally.  '  And  Jesus 
37  answered  and  said,  as  he  taught  in  the  temple.  How  say  the  scribes 
that  Christ  is  the  son  of  David  ?  David  himself  said  in  the  Holy 
Spirit, 

The  Lord  said  unto  my  Lord, 
Sit  thou  on  my  right  hand, 

Till  I  make  thine  enemies  the  footstool  of  thy  feet. 
David  himself  calleth  him  Lord  ;  and  whence  is  he  his  son  ?  '  Luke's 
20Lxike4i-  account,  also,  implies  that  the  question  was  put  to  the  people.    '  And 
''■*  he  said  unto  them,  How  say  they  that  the  Christ  is  David's  son  ? 
For  David  himself  saith  in  the  book  of  Psalms, 
'  The  Lord  said  unto  my  Lord, 
Sit  thou  on  my  right  hand. 

Till  I  make  thine  enemies  the  footstool  of  thy  feet.' 
David  therefore  calleth  him  Lord,  and  how  is  he  his  son  ? '  In  the 
Authorised  Version  the  quotation  in  Matthew  stands,  '  Till  I  make 
thine  enemies  thy  footstool,'  w^hich  is  altered  by  the  Revisers  to '  Till 
I  put  thine  enemies  underneath  thy  feet,'  on  the  authority  of  the 
two  oldest  MSS.  In  Mark,  the  Vatican  only  out  of  the  three  oldest 
MSS.  has  a  similar  reading  ;  the  Revisers  have  not  adopted  it,  but 
have  inserted  the  note  :  '  Some  ancient  authorities  read  underneath 
thy  feet.''  In  Mark  and  Luke  the  Revisers  have  altered  '  footstool ' 
to  '  footstool  of  thy  feet.'  That  is  a  difference  of  translation,  not  of 
readings,  and  Sharpe  renders  it  in  the  same  way  as  the  Revisers, 
although  Young  and  Tischendorf  do  not.  The  tautology  of  the 
expression  sufficiently  accounts  for  its  not  having  been  rendered 
literally.  Luther  agrees  with  the  Revisers,  but  the  German  word  for 
footstool  being  '  Schemel,'  there  is  no  tautophony  between  it  and 
*Fusse,'  'feet/ 

By  beginning  the  words  '  Spirit '  and  '  Holy  Spirit '  with  capitals, 
the  translators  have  introduced  the  idea  of  a  divine  personality  :  at 
least,  that  is  the  sense  which  ordinary  readers  would  give  to  words  so 
distinguished.  The  Authorised  Version  renders  Matthew,  literally, 
'  in  spirit,'  uncapitalised,  now  altered  by  the  Revisers  to  '  in  the 
Spirit,'  capitalised.  Tischendorf  agrees  with  the  Authorised  Version ; 
Sharpe  also  ;  and  the  latter,  in  Mark,  instead  of  '  in  the  Holy  Spirit,' 
capitalised,  has  '  in  holy  spirit,'  uncapitalised,  a  reading  which  was 
adopted  by  Griesbach  and  Wordsworth.  The  introduction  of  capitals 
is  obviously  uncalled  for,  not  warranted  by  the  original,  and 
scarcely  fair  towards  English  readers,  who  are  accustomed  to  attach 
a  certain  significance  to  the  use  of  them. 

What  would  be  the  proper  answer  to  the  question  which  was  left 
unanswered  ?  Jesus  did  not  deny,  could  not  have  intended  to  throw 
a  doubt  upon  the  fact,  that  Christ  was  actually  descended  from 
David.  The  apostle  Paul  announced  that  as  an  undoubted  truth  : 
'  Concerning  his  Son,  who  was  born  of  the  seed  of  David  according  to 
1  Rom.  3  the  flesh  ; '  but  he  instantly  went  on  to  the  higher  truth  :  '  who  was 
„  4  declared  (Gr.  determined)  to  be  the  Son  of  God  with  (or,  in)  power, 
according  to  the  spirit  of  holiness,  by  the  resurrection  of  the  dead  ; 
even  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord.'  It  was  that  loftier  relationship  to  which 
Jesus  called  attention,  and  the  existence  of  which  was  clearly  indicated 


PART  II.]        A    STUDY    OF    THE    FOUR    GOSPELS.  329 

when  David  himself  owned  personal  allegiance  to  tlie  Christ.     There 

was  obviously  an  aspect  under  which  David  contemplated  the  Messiah, 

which  was  incompatible  with  the  ordinary  ideas  of  mere  natural 

descent  and  relationship.     "Writing  under  a  spiritual  influence,  David 

reversed  the  recognised  order  of  precedence,  and  si)oke  of  Christ  not 

as   his  son  but  as  his  lord.     The  word  '  son  '    was  equivalent  to 

*  descendant,'  one  born  in  some  distant  age,  and  whose  orbit  of  life 

and  influence  could  at  no  point  cross  tliat  of  a  long-departed  ancestor ; 

but  the  title  '  lord '  denotes  a  '  ruler,'  one  to  whom  David  would  look 

up  for  guidance,  and  to  whose  laws  he  would  yield  obedience.     The 

promised  son  would  be  no  mere  follower  of  the  father  ;  there  would 

be  no  repetition  of  the  earthly  career  of  David,  no  re-establishment 

of  his  kingdom  founded  upon  force  and  cemented  with  blood.     The 

spirit  of  prophecy  had  foretold  a  new  order  of  things,  under  a  new 

Lord,  who  would   sit  at   Jehovah's   right   hand,  '  from  henceforth  lo  Heb.  13 

expecting  till  his  enemies  be  made  the  footstool  of  his  feet.'     That 

attitude  of  non-interference  and  simple  expectation  accords  with  the 

Psalm,  with  the  apostle's  interpretation  of  it,  and  with  the  whole 

teaching  and  plan  of  Jesus. 

'  Jehovah  will  send  the  sceptre  of  thy  power  out  of  Ziou  ; 
Rule  thou  in  the  midst  of  thine  enemies.' 
To  rule  in  the  midst  of  enemies  is  surely  a  new  development,  and 
well  describes  the  gospel  scheme.    Equally  significant  of  the  Christian 
warflire  is  the  following  verse  : 

'  Thy  people  will  be  of  willing  heart  in  thy  day  of  battle, 

On  the  mountain  of  holiness 

From  the  womb  of  the  morning  was  the  dew  of  thy  youth.' 
How  well  does  that  describe  the  voluntary  discipleship  demanded  by 
Jesus,  the  earnest  strife  his  people  wage  above  and  aloof  from  the 
world,  so  distinct  from  and  high  above  its  level,  and  the  new  and 
pure  doctrine  of  Jesus,  evolved  out  of  the  earth  like  dew  by  his  up- 
rising as  a  sun  of  righteousness.     Then  comes  the  verse  : 
'  Jehovah  hath  sworn,  and  will  not  repent, 
Thou  art  a  priest  for  ever  of  the  order  of  Melchizedek,' 
which  the  same  apostle  applies  to  the  high  priesthood  of  Jesus.    The  5  Heb.  5, 0 
Psalm  throughout  is  Messianic  in  forecast  and  in  spirit.     The  similes 
at  the  close  are  in  the  tone  and  language  of  the  warlike  David,  but 
they  must  all  be  interpreted  to  accord  with  Avliat  precedes.     The 
divine  spirit  of  prophecy  has  breathed  through  human  instruments, 
and  the  notes,  although  they  make  heavenly  music,  give  evidence  of 
the  imperfection  of  the  medium  through  which  they  are  conveyed. 
This  Psalm  of  David  touches  upon  that  '  salvation  of  souls  '  to  which 
the  apostle  Peter  alluded,  and  to  it  his  words  are  applicable  :  '  Con-  li.  Pet..  10- 
cerning  which  salvation  the  prophets  sought  and  searched  diligently,  ^- 

who  prophesied  of  the  grace  that  sJioukl  come  unto  you  :  search- 
ing w'hat  time  or  what  manner  of  time  the  spirit  of  Christ  which 
was  in  them  did  point  out,  when  it  testified  beforehand  the 
sufferings  of  (Gr.  unto)  Christ,  and  the  glories  that  should  follow 
them.  To  whom  it  was  revealed,  that  not  unto  themselves,  but  unto 
you,  did  they  minister  these  things,  which  now  have  been  announced 
unto  you  through  them  that  preached  the  gospel  unto  you  by  (Gr.  in) 
the  Holy  Spirit  sent  forth  from  heaven.'  To  call  the  attention  of 
the  Pharisees  and  of  the  people  generally  to  the  prophecy  of  David, 
was  the  best  way  of  leading  them  to  a  conception  of  the  spiritual 


330  THE    KING    AND    THE    KINGDOM:  [part  ii. 

character  of  the  reign  of  Christ.  Their  inability  to  solve  the  question 
was  by  itself  a  proof  that  there  were  heights  and  depths  relating  to 
the  office  and  kingdom  of  the  Christ,  to  which  they  had  not  attained, 
and  which  were  not  included  in  the  popular  expectation  of  a  temporal 
Messiah.  Alford  observes  :  '  From  the  universally  recognized  title 
of  the  Messiah  as  the  Son  of  David,  which  by  His  question  He  elicits 
from  them,  He  takes  occasion  to  shew  them,  who  understood  this 
title  in  a  mere  worldly  political  sense,  the  difficulty  arising  from 
David's  own  reverence  for  this  his  son  :  the  solution  lying  in  the  in- 
carnate Godhead  of  the  Christ,  of  which  they  were  ignorant.'  That 
last  sentence  narrows  down  the  explanation  to  one  particular  theo- 
logical dogma,  about  which  nothing  was  known.  If  that  were  the 
only  possible  solution,  what  would  have  been  the  use  of  putting  the 
question  ?  A  knowledge  of  the  miraculous  incarnation  of  Jesus  was 
not  indispensable  to  the  acknowledgment  of  him  as  Son  of  God.  The 
import  of  the  title  rests  not  on  that  foundation  only.  When  Jesus 
14  Mat.  33  had  calmed  the  tempest,  '  they  that  were  in  the  boat  worshipped  him, 
■27  Mat,  54  saying,  Of  a  truth  tiiou  art  the  Son  of  God.'  And  we  read  that  '  the 
centurion,  and  they  that  were  with  him  watching  Jesus,  when  they 
saw  the  earthquake,  and  the  things  that  were  done,  feared  exceedingly, 
saying,  Truly  this  was  the  Son  of  God  (or,  a  son  of  God).'  The 
expression  had  a  definite  meaning  altogether  independent  of  the 
mystery  of  the  incarnation,  which  is  not  once  alluded  to  in  the 
preaching  of  the  apostles  or  in  the  epistles.  Paul  based  the  claim  of 
Jesus  to  the  title,  not  on  his  birth  but  ou  his  resurrection  :  '  who  was 
determined  the  Son  of  God  in  power,  according  to  the  spirit  of 
holiness,  by  the  resurrection  of  the  dead,'  rendered  by  Young  :  '  who 
is  marked  out  Son  of  God  in  power,  according  to  the  Spirit  of 
holiness,  by  the  rising  again  from  the  dead.' 

On  the  words,  '  David  in  the  Spirit,'  in  Matthew,  and,  '  David 
himself  saith  in  the  Holy  Spirit,'  in  Mark,  Alford  makes  the  following 
note  :  '  This  is  a  weighty  declaration  by  our  Lord  of  the  inspiration  of 
the  prophetic  Scriptures.'  The  remark  is  as  natural  as  it  is  important. 
In  proportion  to  our  hostility  to  the  theory  of  inspiration,  when 
placed  upon  a  wrong  basis  and  carried  to  an  extreme  unwarranted 
by  the  Scriptures  themselves  and  which  is  repugnant  to  common 
sense,  must  be  our  anxiety  to  admit  the  doctrine  to  the  full  extent  to 
which  it  is  justified  by  the  divine  revelation  and  does  not  offend  our 
judgment  or  make  unauthorised  demands  upon  our  credulity.  We 
have  here  the  belief  of  Jesus  himself  upon  the  matter,  and  it  accords 
1  ii.  Pet.  21  entirely  with  the  statement  of  the  apostle  Peter,  that  '  men  spake 
from  God,  being  moved  by  the  Holy  Spirit.'  The  whole  Bible,  from 
the  first  verse  of  Genesis  to  the  last  of  Revelation,  is  a  declaration  of 
divine  power  and  influence  exercised  on  behalf  of  mankind.  That 
conviction  uprose  early  in  human  history,  and  continued  in  full  force- 
during  thousands  of  years.  That  is  a  fact  which  cannot  be  denied, 
the  historical  and  prophetic  books  of  the  Old  and  I^ew  Testaments 
being  in  themselves  a  consecutive  chain  of  evidence.  We  have  not  to 
deal  with  the  primary  beliefs  of  ignorant,  uncivilized  savages.  The 
patriarch  Abraham  was  not  of  that  class,  and  the  divine  revelations 
and  promises  made  to  him  either  were  realities,  true  in  substance  and 
fact,  or  fables  invented  by  human  genius.  The  same  remark  applies 
to  the  historical  books  which  relate  the  deliverance  of  the  Israelites 
from  Egypt,  the  giving  of  the  law,  the  institution  of  an  elaborate 


PART  11.]         A     STUDY   OF    THE    FOUR    GOSPELS.  331 

ritualism,  the  settlement  in  Canaan,  the  comraenceraeut  of  the 
monarchical  system,  the  continuous  stream  of  prophecy  throughout 
the  Psalms,  Isaiah,  Jeremiah,  and  all  tlie  prophets  up  to  Malachi.  It 
is  easy  enoug-h  for  a  solitary  thinker  to  set  aside  the  beliefs,  and  the 
outcome  thereof,  which  have  accumulated  during  past  centuries,  to 
treat  them  all  as  idle  tales,  to  transfer  the  puerilities  and  unre- 
liabilities attaching  to  the  creeds  of  other  nations  to  the  history  of 
the  Jewish  people,  classing  them  all  together,  and  waving  them  an-ay 
as  myths  of  olden  times,  unworthy  of  credence  by  a  scholar  of  these 
enlightened  days.  The  fashion  sets  that  way.  The  solemn  account 
of  tlie  raising  of  Lazarus  is  deemed,  forsooth,  a  freak  of  the  imagina- 
tion, and  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  is  assumed  to  have  no  foundation 
in  fact.  All  theories  are  possible  and  plausible  to  the  minds  which 
form  them,  and  all  alike  must  be  established  or  crumble  into  nothing- 
ness at  the  touch  of  reality  and  truth.  The  Jews  and  their  prophets, 
Jesus  and  his  apostles,  and  the  first  and  subsequent  believers  in 
Christianity,  were  neither  fools  nor  children,  but  equal  in  capacity 
and  power  of  judgment  to  the  most  enlightened  scholars  of  the  pre- 
sent day.  The  matters  which  the  men  of  old  believed  in  and  placed 
on  record  were  within  the  scope  of  their  personal  observation,  and  if 
they  had  not  been  true  it  is  impossible  to  suppose  such  men  would 
have  accepted  them,  held  fast  to  them  at  peril  of  suffering  and  death, 
and  have  devoted  their  lives  to  the  promulgation  of  the  gospel.  We 
have  to  choose  between  two  contrary  propositions  :  (1)  That  God, 
the  Jehovah  of  the  Jews,  has  granted  a  revelation  to  mankind  ;  (2) 
that  no  such  revelation  has  been  made.  As  a  mere  subject  of 
scientific  enquiry,  the  one  is  as  credible  and  reasonable  as  the  other. 
In  support  of  the  second  we  have  the  deductions,  inferences,  conclu- 
sions, of  men  who  have  investigated,  more  or  less  fully  and  carefully, 
the  records  of  past  times,  and  who  express  their  opinion  to  the  efiect 
that  the  Scriptures  of  the  Jews  are  worth  no  more  than  the  sacred 
books  of  other  nations,  if  so  much  ;  that  the  very  idea  of  a  miracle 
is  offensive  to  a  well-trained  mind  (the  miracles  of  science  always 
excepted),  that  it  is  a  thing  incredible  that  God  should  raise  the  dead, 
and  that  the  whole  human  race,  Jews  and  Gentiles  alike,  have  been 
left  from  the  first,  whatever  they  may  think  to  the  contrary,  without 
one  law  for  guidance  from  above,  or  one  spark  of  inspiration  from  a 
Supreme  Intelligence.  On  the  other  hand,  in  favour  of  the  first  pro- 
position, we  have  a  mass  of  evidence  handed  down  from  earliest  ages, 
carried  on  through  successive  generations,  forming  a  consecutive  narra- 
tive, one  thread  of  purpose  and  design  running  through  the  whole.  The 
mental  calibre  of  the  psalmists  and  prophets  is  not  surpassed  by  that 
of  their  modern  critics,  and  the  mind  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  as  revealed 
to  us  through  the  gospels,  apart  from  other  evidence  and  claims, 
towers  high  above  the  intellects  of  those  who  would  have  us 
appraise  him  as  a  mere  dreamer  of  dreams,  an  enthusiast  who  over- 
rated himself  and  deluded  his  followers.  The  words  of  Jesus  and 
the  writings  of  the  apostles  survive  them,  amply  demonstrating  their 
powers  of  intelligence  and  soundness  of  judgment.  It  is  enough  for 
us  that  Jesus  endorsed  the  belief  current  among  his  countrymen  on 
the  subject  of  inspiration.  The  extent  to  which  that  doctrine  may 
be  carried  is  still  an  open  question.  The  apostle  Peter  was  of  opinion 
that  the  prophets  themselves  were  not  able  to  grasp  the  nature  of 


332  THE    KING    AND    THE    KINGDOM:  [part  n. 

that  salvation  to  which  the  Messianic  Spirit  within  them  testified, 
although  they  were  led  to  foretell  a  condition  of  mingled  suffering 
and  glory  which  should  be  realised  in  some  distant  future.  The 
prophetic  insight  was  not  in  all  to  the  same  extent,  and  it  would  seem 
that  the  visions  of  futurity  necessarily  took  the  form,  character  and 
words  natural  to  the  minds  to  which  they  were  presented.  It  is 
quite  conceivable  that  clearer  and  brighter  views  might  be  obtained 
at  one  time  than  at  another,  by  the  same  individual,  and  that  different 
men,  speaking  by  the  same  Spirit,  should  realise  in  varying  degrees 
the  coming  destinies  of  mankind,  and  describe  them  after  the  fashion 
of  the  ideas  most  prominent  and  habitual  in  their  own  minds.  Take, 
for  instance,  the  psalm  to  which  Jesus  referred.  The  first  four  verses 
accord  Avith  all  we  know  of  Messiah's  spirit  and  kingdom,  but  then 
David  proceeds  to  paint  a  picture  in  his  own  colours  descriptive  of 
the  justice  and  triumph  of  the  Christ. 
110  Ps.  5, 6  '  The  Lord  at  thy  right  hand 

Shall  strike  through  kings  in  the  day  of  his  wrath. 
He  shall  judge  among  the  nations, 
He  shall  fill  the  places  with  dead  bodies  ; 
He  shall  strike  through  the  head  in  many  countries.' 
Taken  as  jDure  figures  of  speech,  but  in  no  other  way,  all  this 
denotes  the  ultimate  supremacy  of  the  Messiah.     The  literal  sense  is 
utterly  abhorrent  to  the  aims  and  character  of  Jesus.     In  another 
Psalm,  not  of  David,  we  have  a  clue  to  the  true  meaning  of  these 
'  desolations '  which  God  will  bring  upon  the  earth. 
46  Ps.  s-io  '  Come,  behold  the  works  of  the  Lord, 

What  desolations  he  hath  made  in  the  earth. 
He  maketh  wars  to  cease  unto  the  end  of  the  earth  ; 
He  breaketh  the  bow,  and  cutteth  the  spear  in  sunder  ; 
He  burneth  the  chariots  in  the  fire. 
Be  still,  and  know  that  I  am  God  : 
I  will  be  exalted  among  the  nations, 
I  will  be  exalted  in  the  earth.' 
Take  another  Psalm,  evidently  prophetic. 
72  Ps.  5-9  '  They  shall  fear  thee  while  the  sun  endureth, 

And  so  long  as  the  moon,  throughout  all  generations. 
He  shall  come  down  like  rain  upon  the  mown  grass  : 
As  showers  that  water  the  earth. 
In  his  days  shall  the  righteous  flourish  ; 
And  abundance  of  peace,  till  the  moon  be  no  more. 
He  shall  have  dominion  also  from  sea  to  sea, 
And  from  the  River  unto  the  ends  of  the  earth. 
They  that  dwell  in  the  wilderness  shall  bow  before  him  ; 
And  his  enemies  shall  lick  the  dust.' 
That  last  line  is  out  of  harmony  with  the  rest,  unless  we  take  it  in  ' 
a  figurative  sense.     The  same  remark  applies  to  the  closing  words  of 
verse  4,  which  stands  as  follows  : 

'He  shall  judge  the  poor  of  the  people, 
He  shall  save  the  children  of  the  needy, 
And  shall  break  in  pieces  the  oppressor.' 
14  i.  Cor.  32       Paul  explained  that  '  the  spirits  of  the  prophets  are  subject  to  the 
prophets  ; '  and  when  Peter  expressed  his  conviction  that  the  Spirit  of 
1  i.  Pet.  10-  Christ  was  in  those  who  foretold  gospel  days,  he  claimed  for  them  no 


PART  II.]  A    STUDY    OF    THE    FOUR    GOSPELS.  333 

greater  gift  than  that  which  every  Christian  must  possess,  for  '  if  any  s  Rom.  9 
man  hath  not  the  Spirit  of  Christ,  he  is  none  of  his.'  There  is  no  more 
justification  for  the  assertion  that  the  Spirit  of  God  in  the  Old  and 
New  Testament  writers  conferred  infolhhihty  upon  them,  than  there 
would  be  for  claiming  the  same  infallibility  for  all  Christians  now. 
*  To  each  one  is  given  the  manifestation  of  the  Spirit  to  profit  withal.'  1-2  i.  cor.  7 
The  test  of  true  inspiration  is  profitabhiess  :  '  Every  scripture  inspired  3  ii.  Tim.  m 
of  God  is  also  profitable.'  Tischendorf,  Sharpe  aud  Luther  render 
that  passage  in  the  same  way,  so  that  it  really  carries  a  meaning 
contrary  to  that  deduced  from  the  Authorised  Version,  which  stands 
as  follows  :  'All  scripture  is  given  by  inspiration  of  God,  aud  is 
profitable.'  To  assume  that  there  is  nothing  in  tlie  Bible  purely 
human  ;  that  every  sentence  has  been  framed  under  divine  guidance; 
that  mistakes  and  misapprehensions  were  eliminated  from  the  minds 
of  the  writers,  when  they  wrote  or  dictated  these  records,  however 
little  that  may  have  been  the  case  with  them  at  other  moments  :  that 
is  a  proposition  too  monstrous  and  absurd  to  be  upheld  in  all  its 
nakedness.  Yet  the  theory  of  Inspiration,  long  held  and  insisted  on, 
amounts  to  neither  more  nor  less  than  that.  Let  us  distinguish 
between  infallibility  and  spirituality,  and  between  spirituality  and 
omniscience.  The  saying  of  Jesus  that  David  in  the  Holy  Spirit 
called  Christ  Lord,  testifies  only  to  the  spiritual  insight  of  David. 
To  that  extent,  at  least,  God  had  '  sent  forth  the  Spirit  of  his  Son,'  4  Gai.  6 
into  the  heart  of  David,  as  he  does  now  into  our  hearts  :  for  '  no  man  12  i.  Cor.  3 
can  say,  Jesus  is  Lord,  but  in  the  Holy  Spirit.'  Consider  how 
unhesitatingly  the  apostle  Paul  asserted,  not  only  the  existence  of  a 
spiritual  influence  in  believers,  but  its  universality  among  them,  and 
its  varieties  of  operation.  '  Now  there  are  diversities  of  gifts,  but  the  „  4-] 
same  Spirit,  And  there  are  diversities  of  ministrations,  and  the  same 
Lord.  And  there  are  diversities  of  workings,  but  the  same  God,  who 
worketh  all  things  in  all.  But  to  each  one  is  given  the  manifestation 
of  the  Spirit  to  profit  Avithal.  For  to  one  is  given  through  the  Spirit 
the  word  of  wisdom  ;  and  to  another  the  word  of  knowledge,  accord- 
ing to  the  same  Spirit :  to  another  faith,  in  the  same  Spirit ;  and 
to  another  gifts  of  healings,  in  the  one  Spirit ;  aud  to  another 
workings  of  miracles  (or,  powers)  ;  and  to  another  prophecy  ;  and 
to  another  disceruings  of  spirits  :  to  another  divers  kinds  of  tongues  ; 
and  to  another  the  interpretation  of  tongues  :  but  all  these  worketh 
the  one  and  the  same  Spirit,  dividing  to  each  one  severally  even  as 
he  will.'  The  doctrine  of  inspiration  cannot  be  rightly  grasped 
by  those  who  restrict  it  to  the  writers  of  the  Old  and  New 
Testaments.  That  is  the  fundamental  error  to  be  guarded  against. 
Inspiration  has  been  held  to  signify,  not  spirituality,  but  infallible 
accuracy,  not  the  natural,  spontaneous  outcome  of  that  energy  and 
intelligence  which  the  Spirit  of  God  has  vouchsafed  '  to  each  one 
severally,  even  as  he  will,'  but  a  kind  of  rehgious  ventriloquism,  as 
though  the  lips  of  prophets  were  moved  by  a  supernatural  influence 
to  utter  words  not  of  their  own  choosing.  Except  in  the  case  of 
Balaam,  what  justification  do  the  Scriptures  afford  for  such  an  idea  ? 
The  recognition  by  Jesus  of  the  fact  that  David  and  other  prophets 
spake  '  in  the  Holy  Spirit '  must  not  be  assumed  to  favour  whatever 
views  of  inspiration  happen  to  be  current  among  theologians.  His 
admission  of  the  doctrine  must  not  be  confounded  with  their  definition 


334  THE    KING    AND    THE    KINGDOM:  [part  ii. 

of  it  Dean  Alford,  in  the  Introduction  to  his  '  New  Testament  for 
EngHsh  Readers '  has  defined  his  belief  in  inspiration  :  '  I  regard  the 
Canonical  Books  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments  to  have  been  given 
by  inspiration  of  Almighty  God,  and  in  this  respect  to  differ  from  all 
other  books  in  the  world.  I  rest  this  my  belief  on  the  consent  of 
Christ's  Holy  Catholic  Church,  and  on  evidence  furnished  by  these 
books  themselves.'  That  phrase,  '  the  consent  of  Christ's  Holy 
Catholic  Church,'  is  sonorous  and  solemn,  but  pub  into  plainer  words 
it  amounts  to  this  :  That  the  belief  in  inspiration  is  based  upon  the 
opinions  of  Christians  m  general,  and  that  no  one  in  particular  is 
responsible  for  it.  AYe  are  to  accept  it,  because  others  accepted  it 
before  us.  It  is  held  to  follow  that,  inasmuch  as  the  four  gospels 
have  been  consented  to  by  the  Church,  their  compilers  are  to  be 
assumed  to  have  been  inspired, — Mark  and  Luke,  who  were  not 
apostles,  equally  with  Matthew  and  John  who  were.  The  successive 
steps  of  the  argument  are  not  disclosed,  and  consequently  no  attempt 
is  made  to  examine  and  substantiate  them.  The  'consent  of  Christ's 
Holy  Catholic  Church'  covers  everything,  and  so,  without  enquiry 
and  without  scruple,  Alford  reaches  the  following  conclusion  :  '  The 
two,  three,  or  four,  Gospel  records  of  the  same  event  are  each  of  them 
separately  true  :  written  by  men  divinely  guided  into  truth,  and 
relating  facts  which  happened,  and  as  they  happened.'  This  is 
another  turning-point  in  the  argument,  it  being  taken  for  granted 
that  inspiration  and  historical  accuracy  are  either  identical,  or  that  the 
former  includes  the  latter,  and  that  inasmuch  as  the  New  Testa- 
ment writers  were  inspired,  they  must  been  supernaturally  guided  in 
the  task  of  compilation,  and  were  enabled  unerringly  to  sift  the  false 
•<  from  the  true.  So  we  are  led  on  and  on,  from  one  assumption  to 
another,  only  to  find  at  last  that  the  doctrine  of  inspiration,  which  is 
founded  upon  '  the  consent  of  Christ's  Holy  Catholic  Church,'  is  not 
consented  to  in  the  same  sense  by  those  who  hold  it,  so  that  Alford 
has  to  argue  against  the  theory  of  verMl  inspiration,  and  to  fall  back 
upon  phnarij  inspiration,  saying,  '  If  I  understand  plenary  inspiration 
rightly,  I  hold  it  to  the  utmost.'  He  arrives  finally,  however,  at  this 
conclusion  :  '  We  must  take  our  views  of  inspiration,  not,  as  is  too 
often  done,  from  d  priori  considerations,  but  entirely  from  the  evidence 
furnished  by  the  Scriptures  themselves ; '  with  which,  it  may  be  added, 
the  consent  of  the  '  Church '  has  nothing  to  do. 

Every  attempt  to  bring  the  teaching  of  Jesus  into  contempt  had 
failed   ignominiously,   and  his    discourses   were    now  attended  by 

12  Mark  37  crowds  of  eager  listeners.  '  And  the  common  people  (or,  the  great 
multitude)  heard  him  gladly.'  Alford  notes  that  the  expression 
'  common  people '  in  the  Authorised  Version  is  '  literally  ike  great 
multitiicie.''  Young,  Tischendorf  and  Luther  so  render  it,  and  Sharpe 
and  the  '  Englishman's  Greek  New  Testament,'  '  the  great  crowd.' 
Jesus  was  addressing  his  disciples,  but  what  he  said  to  them  was 
heard  by  others,  and  he  did  not  scruple  thus  publicly  to  utter  a 
w^arning  against  the  scribes,  their  love  of  ostentation,  their  rapacity 

CO  Luke  45-  and  hypocrisy.     'And  in  the  hearing  of  all  the  people  he  said  unto 

*^  his  disciples,"  Beware  of  the  scribes,  which  desire  to  walk  in  long 

robes,  and  love  salutations  in  the  market-places,  and  chief  seats  in 

the  synagogues,  and  chief  places  at  feasts  ;   which  devour  widows' 


PART  II.]         A    SSTUJJY    OF    THE    FOUR    GOSPELS.  335 

houses,  and  for  a  pretence,  make  long  prayers :    these  shall  receive 
greater  condemnation.'      Mark  is  to  the  same  effect:  'And  in  his  12 M.-uk 38- 
teaching  he  said.  Beware  of  the  scribes,  which  desire  to  walk  in  long  ■*° 

robes,  and  to  have  salutations  in  the  market-places,  and  chief  seats  in 
the  synagogues,  and  chief  places  at  feasts  :  they  which  devour 
widows'  houses,  and  for  a  pretence  make  (or,  even  while  for  a 
pretence  they  make)  long  prayers  ;  these  shall  receive  greater  con- 
demnation.' The  Kevisers  have  altered  '  damnation  '  to  '  condemna- 
tion.' Young  renders,  '  more  notable  judgment,'  and  Tischendorf, 
'  more  abundant  judgment.'  In  these  few  masterly  W'ords  and 
touches  Jesus  thus  summarised  the  lives  and  characters  of  this  class 
of  men  :  their  love  of  dress  and  deference  and  precedence,  always 
and  everywhere,  their  grasping  avarice,  veneered  over  with  sancti- 
monious observances.  There  was  a  world  of  cant  in  those  days,  as  in 
ours,  crying  out  for  exposure,  and  meriting  the  contempt  of  every 
honest  mind.  Vices  of  that  kind  deserve,  and  will  receive,  a  greater 
measure  of  reprobation  than  open  transgressions  :  '  Some  men's  sins  ■'  '•  Tim.  lm 
are  evident,  going  before  unto  judgement :  and  some  men  also  they 
follow  after.'  A  poison  disguised  as  fragrance  and  permeating  the 
atmosphere,  works  more  mischief  than  the  oj^en  contamination  of  a 
dungheap.  Jesus  directed  the  full  force  of  his  eloquence,  and  that 
not  once  or  twice  only,  against  the  miasma  of  hypocrisy.  This 
condemnation  of  the  scribes,  related  by  Mark  and  Luke,  was  pre- 
liminary to  a  long  and  vehement  discourse  recorded  by  Matthew. 
Jesus  began  by  bidding  his  hearers  recognise  the  judicial  position 
occupied  by  the  scribes  and  Pharisees,  whose  counsels  might  be 
followed  safely  and  in  all  good  conscience.  Their  teaching  by  way 
of  precept  was  right,  but  the  example  of  their  lives  was  pernicious. 
'  Then  spake  Jesus  to  the  multitudes  and  to  his  disciples,  saying.  The  23  Mat.  1-3 
scribes  and  the  Pharisees  sit  on  Moses'  seat :  all  things  therefore 
whatsoever  they  bid  you,  these  do  and  observe  :  but  do  not  ye  after 
their  works  ;  for  they  say,  and  do  not.'  Tischendorf  renders  :  '  sat 
on  Moses'  seat '  ;  and  Young  literally  :  '  On  the  seat  of  Moses  sat 
down  the  scribes  and  the  Pharisees.'  Alford  notes  :  '  The  verb 
rendered  sit  must  not  be  pressed  too  strongly,  as  conveying  blame, — 
have  seated  themselves ;  it  is  merely  stated  here  as  a  matter  of  fact.'' 
Their  teaching  was  rigid  and  burdensome  in  the  extreme,  but  their 
own  lives  w'ere  light  and  frivolous.  '  Yea,  they  bind  heavy  burdens  "  ^ 
and  grievous  to  be  borne,  and  lay  them  on  men's  shoulders  ;  but 
they  themselves  wall  not  move  them  with  their  finger.'  The  Revisers 
note  that '  many  ancient  authorities  omit  and  grievous  to  he  home.'' 
It  is  omitted  by  Tischendorf  and  Alford.  The  reading  of  the  oldest 
]\IS.  is,  '  great  heavy  burdens,  and  lay.'  The  Authorised  Version 
has,  '  with  one  of  their  fingers,'  but  Young  and  Tischendorf  agree 
with  the  Revisers  in  rendering,  '  with  their  finger.'  Their  airy, 
fantastic  finger-touch,  which  was  all  they  cared  to  give,  could  not 
lay  hold  upon  and  grapple  with  the  stern  and  solemn  responsibilities 
they  preached  about.  Their  chosen  sphere  of  action  was  in  duties 
and  customs  which  could  be  exhibited  externally,  making  themselves 
conspicuous  in  the  eyes  of  men.  '  But  all  their  works  they  do  for  to  ..  '>-'i 
be  seen  of  men  :  for  they  make  broad  their  phylacteries,  and  enlarge 
the  borders  of  their  garments,  and  love  the  chief  place  at  feasts,  and 
the  chief  seats  in  the  synagogues,  and  the  salutations  in  the  market- 


336  THE    KIXG    AND    THE    KINGDOM:  [part  ir 

places,  and  to  be  called  of  men,  Rabbi.'  The  two  oldest  MSS.  omit 
'  of  their  o^arments,'  which  seems  to  be  the  reason  why  the  Revisers 
italicised  those  words.  The  Authorised  Version  repeats  the  word 
*  Rabbi,'  now  omitted  on  the  same  authority.  'Uppermost  rooms  at 
feast '  is  now  literally  translated,  '  chief  places  (conches — Young)  at 
feasts.'  Alford  explains  :  '  Pliylacteries,  in  the  Hebrew,  Tephillhi, 
were  strips  of  parchment  with  certain  passages  of  Scripture,  viz., 
Exod.  xiii.  11—16  and  1—10:  Deut,  xi.  13—21  ;  vi.  4—9,  written 
on  them,  and  worn  on  the  forehead  between  the  eyes,  on  the  left 
side  next  the  heart,  and  on  the  left  arm.'  On  the  title  '  Rabbi,' 
•23  Mat.  8  Jesus  obscrvcd :  '  But  be  not  ye  called  Rabbi  :  for  one  is  your 
teacher,  and  all  ye  are  brethren.'  The  words  '  even  Christ,'  after 
'  teacher,'  are  now  omitted,  not  being  in  the  two  oldest  MSS.  The 
word  rendered  '  Master '  iu  the  Authorised  Version  and  '  director '  by 
Young,  is  now  replaced  by'  teacher,'  according  to  a  different  reading. 
„  9-12  Jesus  continued :  '  And  call  no  man  your  father  on  the  earth  :  for 
one  is  your  Father,  which  is  in  heaven  (Gr.  the  heavenly).  Neither 
be  ye  called  masters,  for  one  is  your  master,  even  the  Christ.  But 
he  that  is  greatest  (Gr.  greater)  among  you  shall  be  your  servant  (or, 
minister).  And  whosoever  shall  exalt  himself  shall  be  humbled ; 
and  whosoever  shall  humble  himself  shall  be  exalted.'  Tischeudorf 
renders  '  masters,  master,'  as  '  leaders,  leader,'  and  Young  as 
'directors,  director.'  Alford  explains  that  'call  no  man  your  father 
on  the  earth  '  is,  '  literally,  name  not  any  Father  of  you  on  earth ' : 
the  command  is  to  the  disciples  collectively,  not  designed  to  touch 
upon  personal  and  family  relationships.  Jesus  strenuously  insisted 
upon  equality  among  his  disciples.  The  collective  title  which  best 
beseems  them  is  '  brethren.'  Freedom,  absolute  and  entire,  is  their 
heritage.  Much  of  the  evil  existing  in  the  world  has  risen  up  and 
been  perpetuated  through  the  spirit  of  autocracy.  Lordship  on  the 
one  side,  and  servility  on  the  other,  have  made  the  multitude 
obedient  slaves  to  one  absolute,  imperious  will,  and  have  enabled 
monarchs  and  their  coadjutors  to  deluge  the  world  with  blood,  so 
that  dynastic  and  national  feuds,  with  all  the  accompanying  horrors 
of  war,  have  come  to  be  regarded  as  the  natural,  justifiable,  inevitable 
condition  of  humanity  on  earth.  The  aim  of  Jesus,  the  sum  and 
substance  of  his  gospel,  was  to  introduce  'peace  on  earth' ;  and  his 
repeated  counsels  to  his  disciples  to  eradicate  from  their  minds  the 
very  idea  of  domination  and  direction  by  a  recognised  superior,  to 
acknowledge  no  fealty  except  to  one  heavenly  Father,  and  to  own  no 
Lord,  no  teacher,  no  leader,  except  Christ  himself, — this  was  the 
best,  the  essential  method  of  bringing  to  pass  his  gracious  purposes 
.  of  blessing  to  mankind.  Let  us  not  fall  into  the  error  of  assuming 
that  such  exhortations  have  only  a  theological  aspect  and  bearing, 
and  relate  simply  to  liberty  of  conscience  and  judgment  in  matters  of 
faith  and  modes' of  divine  worship.  The  precepts  of  Jesus  touch  the 
whole  life  and  character.  He  bound  his  disciples  to  transfer  their 
allegiance  from  others  to  himself.  Absolute  subjection  to  his  rules 
of  conduct  constitutes  the  only  reason  and  justification  of  this 
immunity  from  worldly  claims  and  customs.  The  counsels  of  Jesus 
are  for  disciples  of  Jesus  ;  what  he  speaks,  he  speaks  to  those  who 
receive  the  law  at  his  mouth  and  fashion  their  lives  to  his  pattern. 
Emulations,  distinctions,  precedences,  titles  of  honour, — these   are 


PAKT  II.]        A    STUDY    OF    THE   FOUR    GOSPELS.  337 

badges  of  tlic  world's  system,  and  are  contrary  to  tlie  method  and 
spirit  of  Jesus.  To  carry  out  his  intentions,  it  was,  and  is,  absohitely 
necessary  tliat  a  Christian  brotlierhood  should  exist,  owning  no  lord 
but  the  Christ,  rejecting  the  world's  maxims,  holding  aloof  from  all 
strife  of  law  or  arms,  accumulating  no  surplus  property,  estranged 
from  courtly  rank,  and  allowing  among  its  own  members  no  titles  of 
supoi-iority  or  supremacy.  The  adoption  of  any  lower  standard  of 
discipleship  than  this,  is  evidence  of  departure  from  the  high  ideal  oi' 
the  gospel,  and  of  the  blending  of  the  church  with  the  world.  Alas  ! 
the  very  conception  of  such  an  organisation  is  now  almost  lost 
to  mankind.  ISTo  distinction  is  drawn,  or  even  suggested,  between 
simple  'believers'  and  professed  'disciples'  of  Jesus.  The  only 
difference  now  is  between  the  clergy  and  the  laity,  and  that  not  a 
difference  between  discipleship  and  nou-discipleship,  but  of  profession 
and  of  dress,  all  else  that  is  lawful  to  a  layman  being  equally  lawful 
to  a  clergyman.  There  are  two  conceivable  ways  of  bringing 
mankind  under  the  rule  of  Christ,  of  establishing  the  kingdom  of 
heaven  upon  earth.  The  fii'st  is,  to  iutroduce  all  into  the  church  of 
(*hrist  on  easy  terms,  as  a  matter  of  course  and  of  inherent  right, 
adopting  infant  baptism,  and  then  endeavouring,  by  means  of 
(Christian  teaching,  to  persuade  all  men  to  live  up  to  the  precepts  of 
Jesus,  first  toning  them  down  somewhat,  as  though  they  were 
couched  in  figurative  language  which  needs  to  be  interpreted  and 
modified  to  square  with  the  established  customs  and  recognised  tone 
of  society.  That  has  been  the  system  pursued  through  many 
centuries  :  the  result  being  that  dense  masses  of  the  population,  in 
so-called  Christian  countries,  are  sunk  in  worse  than  heathen  degra- 
dation, the  worship  of  mammon  prevails,  and  the  warlike  spirit 
among  nations  is  as  rampant  as  in  the  time  of  the  Caesars.  The  plan 
of  Jesus  is  the  very  opposite  of  tliat  which  has  been  so  long  adopted 
and  perseveringly  adhered  to.  It  consists  in  the  enlistment  and 
organisation  of  a  band  of  '  disciples,'  volunteers  in  the  cause  of 
Christ,  who  have  pledged  themselves  not  merely  to  aim  at  but 
actually  to  live  the  heavenly  life  on  earth,  having  their  hearts  and 
their  treasure  in  the  heavens,  taking  all  the  counsels  of  Jesus, 
without  exception  or  equivocation,  as  their  rule  of  life,  w^hen  reviled, 
reviling  not  again,  but  committing  themselves  to  him  who  judgeth 
righteously,  animated  by  the  spirit  of  Jesus,  devoting  themselves  as 
the  apostles  did,  and  able  to  take  up  the  apostle's  words  :  '  We  are  -i  i-  Cor.  o-is 
made  a  spectacle  unto  the  world,  both  to  angels  and  to  men.  AVe 
are  fools  for  Christ's  sake,  but  ye  are  wise  in  Christ ;  we  are  weak, 
but  ye  are  strong  ;  ye  have  glory,  but  we  have  dishonour.  Even 
unto  this  present  hour,  we  both  hunger,  and  thirst,  and  are  naked, 
and  are  buffeted,  and  have  no  certain  dwelling-place  ;  and  we  toil, 
working  with  our  own  hands  :  being  reviled,  we  bless  ;  being  perse- 
cuted, we  endure  ;  being  defamed,  we  intreat  :  we  are  made  as  the 
refuse  of  the  world,  the  offscouring  of  all  things,  even  until  now.' 
Such  a  l)ody  of  disciples  would  teach  by  example,  far  more  than  by 
precept,  and  assemblies  of  believers  watched  over,  taught  and  guided 
by  such  men,  would  imbibe  the  true  spirit  of  Christianity,  so  alien 
from  and  antagonistic  to  that  of  the  world,  the  flesh  and  the  devil, 
thereby  solving  at  a  stroke  all  problems  and  oppositions  of  law  and 
liberty,  freedom   and   servitude,  capital   and  labour,  socialism  and 


338  THE    KING    AND    THE    KINGDOM:  [pakt  ii. 

individualism,  free  trade  and  protection,  peace  and  war,  which  now 
distract  the  minds  and  sever  the  interests  of  mankind.  Christianity, 
rightly  viewed,  means  emancipation  from  the  false  and  narrow 
teachings,  maxims  and  customs  of  the  world  :  it  aims  at  neither 
more  nor  less  than  the  regeneration,  purification  and  perfection, — 
physical,  mental,  moral, — of  the  whole  human  race.  It  is  not  a 
system  of  dogmas,  a  scheme  of  salvation  oflFered  for  individual 
acceptance  or  rejection,  but  the  establishment  of  a  heavenly  kingdom 
;uider  the  sway  of  Jesus. 

^- 1'-^- "  '  In  his  days  shall  the  righteous  flourish  : 

And  abundance  of  peace,  till  the  moon  be  no  more.' 

There  have  always  been  men  and  women  desirous  of  devoting 
themselves,  their  property  and  lives,  unreservedly  to  Christ ;  but  they 
have  been  encouraged  to  forsake  the  world,  to  enter  monasteries  and 
nunneries.  Such  a  withdrawal  from  society,  from  the  ordinary 
walks  and  avocations  of  life,  is  incompatible  with  discipleship  to  Jesus, 
and  thwarts  its  very  aim  and  object.  To  take  vows  of  poverty,  of 
celibacy,  of  obedience  to  ecclesiastical  superiors,  is  contrary  to  the 
spirit  of  gospel  freedom,  and  runs  counter  to  the  will  of  Jesus,  who 
must  be  the  only  Rabbi,  lord  and  master  to  his  disciples.  They  must 
be  left  free  to  follow  the  leading  of  his  Spirit.  Nonconformity  to  the 
world  and  conformity  to  Jesus  is  the  essence  of  discipleship.  Any 
institution  framed  after  the  pattern  of  the  world,  which  adopts  badges 
of  distinction,  titles  of  pre-eminence,  judicial  powers,  and  claims  the 
right  of  defining  and  restricting  Avhat  is  to  be  believed  and  preached, 
cannot  be  in  unison  with  the  mind  of  Jesus.  He  said :  '  Be  not  ye 
called  Rabbi,  for  one  is  your  teacher,  and  all  ye  are  brethren  .  .  . 
Neither  be  ye  called  masters  :  for  one  is  your  master — the  Christ.' 
There  must  ])e  an  absolute  reversal  of  the  system  prevailing  in  the 
world  Vt'ithout  :  '  He  that  is  greater  among  you  shall  be  your  servant. 
And  whosoever  shall  exalt  himself  shall  be  humbled  ;  and  whosoever 
shall  humble  himself  shall  be  exalted.'  How  can  the  disciples  of 
Jesus  claim  freedom  from  the  world's  teaching  and  behests,  if  they  set  up 
and  bow  down  to  a  similar  domination  among  themselves  ?  Christianity 
could  no  more  secure  immunity  from  that  gradual  yet  sure  process  of 
deterioration  which  attacks  the  loftiest  ideals  and  aspirations  of 
humanity,  than  could  Judaism  and  the  Mosaic  dispensation.  The 
scribes  and  Pharisees  were  the  leaders  and  teachers  of  religious 
thought  and  practice,  yet  so  far  had  they  declined  from  the  spirit  of 
the  divine  law  and  of  the  prophets,  that  they  scrupled  not  to  seek  the 
death  of  Jesus,  and  compelled  hirn  to  aim  at  the  weakening  of  their 
influence  by  exposing  and  denouncing  the  abominations  of  their 
principles  and  characters.  They  were  the  opponents  of  religious  pro- 
gress, hostile  to  Messiah's  ]Hu-poses,  and  doing  all  they  could  to  . 
yp,  M;<t.  13  hinder  the  establishment  of  his  kingdom.  '  But  woe  unto  you,  scribes 
and  Pharisees,  hypocrites  I  because  ye  shut  the  kingdom  of  heaven 
against  (Gr.  before)  men  :  for  ye  enter  not  in  yourselves,  neither  suffer 
yc  them  that  are  entering  in  to  enter.'  The  verse  which  stands  next 
in  the  Authorised  Version  is  now  omitted.  It  is  not  in  the  two 
oldest  MSS.  Alford  says  :  '  It  is  Avancing  in  almost  all  the  oldest 
authorities.  It  appears  to  have  been  inserted  here  by  the  copyists 
from  Mark  xii.  40,  or  from  Luke  xx.  47.'     The  note  inserted  by  the 


I'AUT  II.]         .-l    STUDY  OF    THE    VOUU    (WSl'ELS.  339 

licvisers  indicates  that  the  position  of  the  verse  varies  in  the  copies  in 
which  it  stands. 

It  was  no  lack  of  energy  which  held  tliesc  men  aloof  from  the 
cause  of  Jesns.  They  had  *  a  zeal  for  God,  but  not  according  to  i<'  H'"h.  l- 
knowledge.'  They  could  be  enthusiastic  in  the  work  of  gaining 
converts  to  their  own  system  of  faith  and  practice.  '  Woe  unto  you,  :33  Mat.  i.-, 
scribes  and  Pharisees,  hypocrites  !  for  ye  compass  sea  and  land  to 
make  one  proselyte.'  Alas  !  for  those  who  thus  submitted  to  their 
influence  :  '  And  when  he  is  become  so,  ye  make  him  twofold  more  a  „  i:, 
sou  of  hell  (dr.  Gehenna)  than  yourselves.'  Of  the  word  '  hell'  the 
following  explanation  is  given  in  '  Helps  to  the  Study  of  the  Bible.' 
'  Hell  is  from  a  root  meaning  "  to  hide,"  so  that  the  original  sense  is 
"  the  hidden  or  unseen  place  "  (8keat).  It  serves  as  the  translation 
of  two  words,  viz.  1  JSheol  (Heb.)  or  Hades  (Gr.),  the  abode  of 
departed  spirits,  as  in  the  Apostles'  Greed.  2  (lelienna  (Heb.)  the 
Valley  of  Hinnom,  the  dark  gorge  on  the  west  side  of  Jerusalem, 
where  was  the  furnace  (Tophet)  in  which  idolators  offered  human 
sacrifices,  and  "  made  their  children  to  pass  through  the  fire  to 
Moloch  ; "  and  in  which  persons,  convicted  of  aggravated  wilful 
murder,  were  burnt  to  deatli  ;  hence  it  was  synonymous  with  a  place 
of  torment — "  hell-fire  "  (Mat.  v.  22).'  That  last  statement,  and  the 
inference  drawn  from  it,  must  not  be  accepted  apart  from  proof. 
Where  is  the  evidence  that  burning  criminals  to  death  was  a  Jewish 
custom  ?  It  could  not  have  been  in  the  days  of  Jesus,  for  the  Jews 
said  to  Pilate,  'It  is  not  lawful  for  us  to  put  any  man  to  death.'  is-ioimai 
Mention  is  omitted  to  be  made  of  the  fact,  stated  by  others,  that  the 
(Jehenna  fire  was  kept  burning  for  the  destruction  of  offal  and  garbage. 
Possibly  the  f/mrf  bodies  of  certain  criminals  may  have  been  cast  there 
to  take  their  chance  of  putrefaction  or  cremation,  for  such  a  custom 
seems  to  be  alluded  to  in  the  closing  verse  of  Isaiah  :  '  And  they  shall  ^'"^  isa.  -a 
go  forth,  and  look  upon  the  carcases  of  the  men  that  have  transgressed 
against  me  :  for  their  worm  shall  not  die,  neither  shall  their  fire  be 
(juenched  ;  and  they  shall  be  an  abhorring  unto  all  flesh.'  The  idea 
of  Gehenna  in  the  minds  of  the  hearers  of  Jesus,  must  have  been 
connected  with  worthlessness,  infamy,  and  corruption,  the  casting 
away  and  destruction  of  that  which  was  vile  and  contaminating.  It 
would  be  a  frightful  perversion  of  the  meaning  of  Jesus  to  take  his 
words,  \ve  make  him  twofold  more  a  son  of  Gehenna  than  yourselves,' 
as  signifying  that  the  scribes  and  Pharisees  and  their  proselytes 
deserved  to  be  and  would  be  burnt  to  death.  A  still  more  hideous, 
revolting  and  absurd  sense  has  been  put  upon  them:  that  of  being 
east  alive  into  fire,  ever  burning,  yet  never  consumed. 

The  scribes  and  Pharisees  played  fast  and  loose  with  conscience, 
and  had  a  systematised  method  of  freeing  men  even  from  solemn 
obligations  voluntarily  entered  into.  Certain  forms  of  words  had 
been  devised  with  that  object,  and  on  a  former  occasion  Jesus  showed 
that  the  effect  of  one  of  them  was  to  abrogate  a  divine  command  : 
'  Ye  say.  If  a  man  shall  say  to  his  father  or  his  mother.  That  where-  7M;uk  ii-is 
with  thou  mightest  have  been  profited  by  me  is  Corban,  that  is  to  say, 
(iiven  io  God;  ye  no  longer  suft'er  him  to  do  aught  for  his  father  or  his 
mother  ;  making  void  the  word  of  (Jod  by  your  tradition  :  and  many 
such  like  things  ye  do,'  Jesus  now  gives  some  further  instances. 
'  AVoe  unto  you,  ye  blind  guides,  which  say,  Whosoever  shall  swear  23  Mat.  ig 

z  2 


340  THE    KING     AND    THE   KINGDOM:         [part  ii. 

by  the  temple  (or,  sanctuary),  it  is  nothing  ;  but  whosoever  shall 
swear  by  the  gold  of  the  temple  (or,  sanctuary),  he  is  a  debtor  (or, 
bound  htj  his  oaiJi).''  Such  casuistry  was  detestable  ;  and  it  assumed 
the  temple  to  be  inferior  to  the  metal  which  adorned  it,  which  is  as 
though  one  should  argue  that  the  dress  is  more  than  the  wearer. 

23  Mat.  17  '  Ye  fools  and  blind  :  for  whether  is  greater,  the  gold  or  the  temple 
(or,  sanctuary)  that  hath  sanctified  the  gold  ? '  In  the  same  way, 
they  annulled  an  oath  by  the  altar,  and  ratified  an  oath  by  the  gift 
placed  thereon  :  a  fanciful  and  false  distinction,  making  man's  gift 
„  IS,  of  more  account  than  (lod's  altar.  '  And  whosoever  shall  swear  by 
^'^  the  altar,  it  is  nothing  ;  but  whosoever  shall  swear  by  the  gift  that  is 
upon  it,  he  is  a  debtor  (or,  bound  ly  his  oafh).  Ye  blind :  for 
whether  is  greater,  the  gift,  or  the  altar  that  sanctifieth  the  gift  ? ' 
In  truth,  however,  i'.  was  no  question  about  less  or  greater,  and  an 
honest  mind  would  brush  aside  such  fine-spun  theories,  devised  only 
as  loopholes  of  escaj^e  for  a  guilty  conscience.  The  greater  includes 
„  -lo-i-i  the  less,  and  the  less  involves  the  greater.  '  He  therefore  that 
sweareth  by  the  altar,  sweareth  by  it,  and  by  all  things  thereon. 
And  he  that  sweareth  by  the  temple  (or,  sanctuary),  sweareth  by  it, 
and  by  him  that  dwelleth  therein.  And  he  that  sweareth  by  the 
heaven,  sweareth  by  the  throne  of  God,  and  by  him  that  sitteth 
thereon.' 

It  was  the  habit  of  these  men's  minds  to  regard  the  less  more  than 
„  ^3  the  greater.  '  Woe  unto  you,  scribes  and  Pharisees,  hypocrites  !  for 
ye  tithe  mint,  and  anise  (or,  dill)  and  cummin,  and  have  left^  undone 
the  weightier  matters  of  the  law,  judgement,  and  mercy,  and  faith  : 
but  these  ye  ought  to  have  done,  and  not  to  have  left  the  other 
undone.'  Young  renders  :  '  These  it  behoved  you  to  do,  and  those 
not  to  neglect.'  Tischendorf:  'These  ought  ye  to  have  done,  and 
not  leave  those,'  which  agrees  Avith  Luther's,  'Diess  sollte  man  thun, 
und  jenes  nicht  lassen.' 

In  the  Authorised  Version  the  next  verse  stands  :  '  Ye  blind 
guides,  Avhich  strain  at  a  gnat,  and  swallow  a  camel,'  rendered  by 
„  :24  the  Eevisers :  '  Ye  blind  guides,  which  strain  out  the  gnat,  and 
swallow  the  camel,' and  by  Young:  'Blind  guides!  who  are  straining 
out  the  gnat,  but  the  camel  are  swallowing.'  As  the  straining  out 
refers  to  drinking,  so  the  swallowing  would  naturally  be  understood 

n  Lov.  4  to  refer  to  eating,  the  Jews  being  forbidden  to  eat  camel.  The  use 
of  the  indefinite  instead  of  the  definite  article  in  the  Authorised 
Version  has  caused  the  passage  to  be  regarded  as  a  strong  hyperbole, 
but  there  is  no  sufficient  reason  for  assuming  an  interpretation  so  far- 
fetched and  exaggerated.     The  idea  of  trangression  in  eating  and 

123  Mat.  25  drinking  being  thus  laid  hold  of,  it  is  carried  on  as  follows  :  'Woe 
unto  you,  scribes  and  Pharisees,  hypocrites  !  for  ye  cleanse  the  out- 
side of  the  cup  and  of  the  platter,  but  within  they  are  full  of  extortion 
and  excess.'  Tischendorf  renders,  '  robbery  and  incontinence  ; ' 
Young  :  '  rapine  and  incontinence  ; '  Sharpe  :  '  rapine  and  injustice,' 
the  last  word  being  a  different  reading,  adopted  by  Griesbach  and 
Wordsworth,  'unrighteousness.'  The  meaning  obviously  is,  'full  of 
that  which  proceeds  from  extortion  and  excess : '  the  livelihood  of 
these  men  consisted  not  in  the  fruits  of  honest  labour.  It  was  a 
grave  charge  to  make  against  a  class,  but  Jesus  accused  them 
unhesitatingly  and  openly,  asserting  now  that  they  devoured  widows' 


I'ART  II.]        A    STUDY   OF    THE    FOUR    GOHPELi<.  341 

houses  on  religious  pretexts,  and  once  before  :  '  Now  do  ye  Pharisees  u  Luke  a;* 
rleanse  the  outside  of  the  cup  and  of  the  platter;  but  your  inward 
part  is  full  of  extortion  and  wickedness.'     Not  all  their  punctilously 
observed  traditions  about  'washings  of  cups,  and  pots,  and  brasen  :  Mark  4 
vessels,'  could  purge  away  the  taint  of  food  acquired  and  eaten  in 
fraud  and  dishonour.     Only  an  honest  meal  could  be  clean  eating. 
'  Thou  blind  IMuu-isee,  cleanse  first  the  inside  of  the  cup  and  of  the  -n  Mat.  -.'li 
platter,  that  the  outside  thereof  may  l)ecome  clean  also.' 

Outward  appearance  was  everything  to  them  :  they  themselves 
were  like  polished  tombs,  conspicuously  fair  outside  and  all  foul  and 
corrupt  within.  '  Woe  unto  you,  scribes  and  Pharisees,  hypocrites  !  „  -j; 
for  ye  are  like  unto  whited  sepulchres,  which  outwardly  appear  beauti- 
ful, but  inwardly  are  full  of  dead  men's  bones,  and  of  all  unclean- 
ncss.'  Jesus  did  not  shrink  from  applying  the  simile,  which  was  not 
one  whit  too  repulsive  to  describe  their  character.  'Even  so  ye  also  ,t  -js 
outwardly  appear  righteous  unto  men,  but  inwardly  ye  are  full  of 
hypocrisy  and  ini(|uity.'  Well  might  they  take  delight  in  buildiug 
sepulchres  and  adorning  tombs.  That  was  one  of  their  forms  of 
ostentatious  piety,  to  hold  in  reverence  the  names  of  martyred 
prophets,  and  disclaim  participation  in  the  guilt  of  their  murderers. 
•  Woe  unto  you,  scribes  and  Pharisees,  hypocrites  !  for  ye  l)uild  the  „  ■-if',  so 
sepulchres  of  the  prophets,  and  garnish  the  tombs  of  the  righteous, 
and  say,  If  we  had  been  in  the  days  of  our  fathers,  we  should  not 
have  been  partakers  with  them  in  the  blood  of  the  prophets.'  There 
was  just  one  truth  in  that :  the  acknowledgment  that  they  were  sons 
of  persecutors  and  prophet-slayers.  And  it  was  equally  true  that 
they  were  engaged  now  in  the  same  course  ;  and  Jesus,  whose  life 
they  sought,  challenges  them  to  complete  their  fathers'  deadly  work. 
He  would  not  yield  to  them,  and  there  was  no  outlet  from  the  strife 
between  them,  except  the  catastrophe  from  which  neither  he  nor  they 
would  shrink — his  death.  '  Wherefore  ye  witness  to  yourselves,  that  „  ^1,32 
ye  are  sons  of  them  that  slew  the  prophets.  Fill  ye  up  then  the 
measure  of  your  fathers.'  It  was  their  very  nature  and  training  to 
be  inimical  to  the  welfare  of  the  community,  treacherous,  venomous, 
and  they  must  be  left  to  work  on  towards  and  until  their  doom  of 
retribution.  '  Ye  serpents,  ye  offspring  of  vipers,  how  shall  ye  escape  „  .•?:! 
the  judgement  of  hell  (Gr.  Gehenna)  ? '  Three  years  had  passed  since 
the  Baptist  applied  to  this  class  of  men  the  same  simile, '  offspring  of  3  Mat.  v 
vipers.'  They  were  still  unchanged  ;  in  the  opinion  of  John  and 
Jesus  they  were,  as  a  class,  beyond  hope  of  change.  When  such 
religious  teachers  thus  speak  in  the  ears  of  all  men,  it  must  be 
because  the  accused  have  l)een  already  tried  and  found  guilty  at  the 
bar  of  public  opinion.  The  spirit  of  Pharisaism  had  infused  itself 
into  the  fountain-head  of  religious  doctrine,  poisoning  the  stream  at 
its  source.  No  reform  could  be  carried  out  except  in  opposition  to 
their  influence  and  teaching  ;  it  was  a  question  of  life  or  death  on 
both  sides  :  either  the  gospel  must  remain  unpreached,  the  kingdom 
of  heaven  shut  up  against  men,  or  its  opponents  must  be  exposed, 
impeached,  defied  and  overcome.  The  career  of  Jesus  was  but  the 
beginning  of  the  strife,  which  would  be  continued  in  his  name  by 
men  hostile  to  and  ahead  of  the  spirit  of  the  times,  as  the  prophets 
were,  teachers  of  a  wi.sdom  higher  than  the  world,  scribes  of  a  new 
class,  apart  from   those  who  now  stood  up  side  by  side  with  the 


342  THE   KING    AND    THE   KINGDOM:  [part  ii. 

•-':?  jimi.  :u  Pharisees.  '  Therefore,  behold,  I  send  unto  you  prophets,  and  wise 
men,  and  scribes.'  Like  their  Master  they  would  be  appointed  to 
death,  even  as  malefactors,  to  infamous  punishment  before  the  con- 
gregations they  sought  to  influence,  being  hunted  from  place  t(» 
„  34  place,  and  finding  nowhere  rest  or  peace.  '  Some  of  them  shall  ye 
kill  and  crucify  ;  and  some  of  them  shall  ye  scourge  in  your  syna- 
gogues, and  persecute  from  city  to  city.'  The  method  of  propagating 
the  gospel  on  the  one  hand,  and  of  opposing  it  on  the  other,  ditlered 
not  from  that  whereby  advancing  light  and  truth  had  been  dissemi- 
nated and  resisted  from  the  earliest  times.     The  first  martyr  under 

7  Acts  51, 52  the  new  dispensation  proclaimed  that  fact:  'Ye  stiffnecked  and 
uncircumcised  in  heart  and  ears,  ye  do  always  resist  the  Holy  Ghost : 
as  your  fathers  did,  so  do  ye.  Which  of  the  prophets  did  not  yonr 
fathers  persecute  ?  and  they  killed  them  which  shewed  before  of  the 
coming  of  the  Righteous  One ;  of  whom  ye  have  now  become 
betrayers  and  murderers.'  These  outrages  upon  humanity  were  all 
done  in  the  name  of  religion,  by  those  who  had  constituted  them- 
selves, and  deemed  themselves,  sjiiritual  guides  and  rulers  of  their 
countrymen.  Civil  magistrates  take  the  lives  of  murderers  and 
hardened  criminals  ;  conquerors  slaughter  all  alike  who  stand  in  the 
way  of  their  ambition  ;  only  theologians  singled  out  for  their  attack 
the  upright,  the  farseeing,  those  guiltless  of  aught  save  the  love  of 
truth  and  the  spirit  of  enquiry  and  reform.  The  shedding  of 
'  righteous  blood  '  has  been  the  speciality  of  religionists  in  all  ages  : 
the  persecutors  for  conscience'  sake  can  alone  be  held  responsible  for 

!  3  Mat.  35  it ;  therefore  Jesus  added  :  '  That  upon  you  may  come  all  the 
righteous  blood  shed  on  the  earth,  from  the  blood  of  Abel  the 
righteous  unto  the  blood  of  Zachariah  son  of  Barachiah,  whom  ye 
slew  between  the  sanctuary  (shrine — Tischendorf)  and  the  altar.' 
The  quarrel  of  Cain  against  Abel  was  a  theological  one,  arising  out 
of  their  different  modes  of  worshipping  Jehovah.  It  is  not  known 
who  Zachariah  son  of  Barachiah  was :  probably  the  victim  last 
murdered  in  Jerusalem  on  account  of  his  religious  opinions  and 
teaching. 

But  although  a  certain  class  was  primarily  and  chiefly  responsible 
for  the  perpetuation  of  the  spirit  and  the  carrying  out  of  the  system 
of  persecution,  the  responsibility  was  not  confined  to  them,  and  its 
consequences  would  fall  upon  the  nation  generally.  The  force  of 
.  public  opinion,  that  is,  of  the  majority  of  their  fellow  citizens,  must 
either  have  been  in  their  favour,  or  utterly  callous  to  their  wrong 

M  Mark  5:;    doiugs.      The   high   priest,  the   chief  priests,   the   elders   and   the 
,,     ii4    scribes,  first  laid  their  hands  upon  Jesus,  '  and  they  all  condemned 

15  Murk  1      him  to  be  worthy  of  ((xr.  liable  to)  death,'  and  '  delivered  him  up  to 
1 1    Pilate.'      We   are  told   also  that  '  the  chief  priests  stirred  up  the 
multitude,  that  he  should  rather  release  Barabbas  unto  them.'     The  ' 

5Actsi>8  high  priest  and  his  council  said  to  the  apostles,  'ye  .  .  intend  U\ 
bring  this  man's  blood  upon  us.'      Yet  Peter  charged  the  people 

.•J  Acts  J4  generally  with  participation  in  the  crime :  '  But  ye  denied  the  Holy 
and  Righteous  One,  and  asked  for  a  murderer  to  be  granted  unto 
you,  and  killed  the  Prince  of  life.'  The  guides  and  their  followers 
17  were  equally  blind  :  '  And  now,  brethren,  I  wot  that  in  ignorance  ye 
did  it,  as  did  also  your  rulers.'  Bigotry,  ignorance,  prejudice, 
indifference, — they  all  have  a  share  in  national  crimes,  serving  to 


PART  II.]        A    STUDY    OF    THE    FOUR    GOSPELS.  .•34:*, 

explain  their  origin,  but  they  do  not  extenuate  them,  neither  can  the 
natural  evil  consequences  of  sucli  wi'ong  doing  be  averted,  or  confined 
to  their  authors  and  abettors.     Jesus  added  :  '  Verily  I  say  unto  you,  i: 
All   these   things   sliall   come   upon    this   generation.'      Hosca   had 
prophesied :    '  My   people    are   destroyed   for   lack   of    knowledge :  i 
because  thou  hast  rejected  knowledge,  I  will  also  reject  thee,  that 
thou  shalt  be  no  priest  to  me  :  seeing  tliou  hast  forgotten  the  law  of 
thy  (rod,  I  also  will  forget  thy  children.'     Things  were  now  fast 
coining  to  that  inevitable  crisis.     The  moral  tone  of  the  nation  was 
weakened  and  perverted  under  the  influence  of  a  false  system  of 
religious  teaching.      In  vain  had  .Jesus  sought  to  stem  the  flowing 
current  of  corruption.     His  efforts  had  failed  of  success.     In  Galilee 
and  elsewhere  he  wtis  held  in  honour,  but  in  the  metropolis  of  .ludrea 
the  influence  of  the  Pharisaic  and  clerical  party  was  too  strong  for 
him,  and  the  very  centre  of  national  life  and  policy  remained  under 
their  guidance  and  control,  its  inhabitants  generally  either  indifferent 
or  hostile  to  his  teaching.     '  0  Jerusalem,  Jerusalem,  which  killeth  s- 
the  prophets,  and  stoneth  them  that  are  sent  unto  her  !  how  often 
would  I  have  gathered  thy  children  together,  even  as  a  hen  gathereth 
her  chickens  under  her  wings,  and  ye  would  not  !  '     Luke  recorded 
this    apostrophe,   but   introduced    it    in   another    coimection,   and 
apparently  out  of  place.     '  0  Jerusalem,  Jerusalem,  which  killeth  the  i 
prophets,  and  stoneth  them  that  are  sent  unto  her  !  how  often  would 
I  have  gathered  thy  children  together,  even  as  a  hen  fjaOicreth  her 
own  brood  undsr  her  wings,  and  ye  w-ould  not !  '     The  simile  is 
peculiar, — cast  in  a  different  mould  of  thought  than  that  which  bears 
the  world's   stamp.      Jesus   desired  to  become  the  Saviour  of   his 
countrymen.     How  ?  Not  by  inciting  them  to  arms,  infusing  martial 
courage,  bidding  them  stand  upon  their  defence,  and,  if  need  be, 
resist  their  foes.     He  had  a  plan  and  purpose  of  his  own,  and  would 
have  them  rest  their  confidence  entirely  upon  himself.     Had  they 
done  so,  listened  to  his  call,  received  his  doctrine,  heard  his  voice 
and   followed   him,  as   sheep   their  shepherd  to  the  fold,  or  as  a 
helpless  brood  nestles  under  the  mother's  wing,  the  war-storm  would 
have  passed  over,  leaving  them  unharmed.     Jesus  was  no  disturber 
of  the  world's  peace,  and  would  have  brought  the  peace  of  heaven  to 
his  followers.     The  all-conquering  Romans  might  have  scorned  his 
gospel,  scoffed  at  the  proclamation  of  a  heavenly  kingdom,  but  they 
would    not    have   cared   to   oppose   the   Christian   doctrine,    or   to 
exterminate  its  adherents.     That  was  the  work  of  the  bigoted  Jews, 
from  whom  the   heathens  had  not  yet  learnt  the  art  of  religious 
persecution.     The  gospel  of  Jesus  would  have  replaced  patriotism  by 
a  nobler  spirit,  have  quenched  the  animosities  of  creed  and  race,  and 
made  Jerusalem  the  source  of  glory  and  joy  to  the  whole  earth, 
instead  of  a  heap  of  ruins.     Jesus  continued  :  '  Behold,  your  house  : 
is  left   unto   you   desolate.'      The   Revisers   note  :    '  Some   ancient 
authorities  omit  desolafe.'     It  is  not  in  the  Vatican  MS.     In  Luke 
the  Revisers  have  italicised  the  word,  which  is  omitted  from  the 
three  oldest  ]\ISS.     There  was  nothing  to  be  expected  for  the  country 
but  utter  ruin  and  devastation.     Jesus  could  not  stand  forth  as  the 
Messiah  of  the  people  except  in  his  proper  character,  nor  save  them 
otherwise  than  in  his  own  way.     False  Christs  might  rise,  holding 
out  delusive  hopes,  but  Jesus  must  retire  from  the   scene,  until 


n  ].ukc  ] 


34-1  THE    KING    AND    THE    KINGDOM:  [part  ii. 

they  were  able  to  recognise  the  nature  of  his  mission  and  hail  him  as 
the  divinely-appointed  Saviour.  '  For  I  say  unto  you,  Ye  shall  not 
sec  me  henceforth,  till  ye  shall  say,  Blessed  is  he  that  cometh  in  the 
name  of  the  Lord.' 

There  is  a  great  similarity  between  this  denunciation  of  the  scribes 
and  Pharisees  in  Matthew  and  that  recorded  in  the  11th  chapter  of 
Luke,  but  the  two  discourses  appear  to  have  been  delivered  on 
different  occasions.  That  in  Luke  was  addressed  to  a  Pharisee  and 
a  lawyer  (verses  38  and  45),  others  of  their  class  being  probably 
present ;  that  in  Matthew  was  spoken  '  to  the  multitudes  and  to  his 
disciples'  (verse  1).  Jesus  had  denounced  the  character  and  conduct 
of  these  men  to  their  faces,  before  he  launched  out  this  attack  upon 
them  in  public. 

Samuel  Sharpe  has  thrown  a  note  of  sorrowful  pathos  into  the 
denunciations  of  Jesus,  by  rendering  '  Woe  unto  you,'  as  '  Alas  for 
you  ! '  That  certainly  accords  with  all  we  know  of  the  mind  and 
heart  of  Jesus.  The  repeated  utterances,  '  Woe  unto  you,'  are  not  to 
1)6  taken  as  indicating  any  personal  animosity  or  desire  of  inflicting 
retributive  punishment, 

Jesus  had  seated  himself  opposite  the  place  where  the  gifts  of  the 
people  were  deposited.  '  And  he  sat  down  over  against  the  treasury.' 
Alford  explains  :  '  This  is  usually  understood  of  fhirteen  chests,  which 
stood  in  the  court  of  the  women,  into  which  were  thrown  contribu- 
tions for  the  temple,  or  the  tribute  (of  Matt.  xvii.  2-4).  But  it  is 
hardly  likely  that  fhci/  would  have  been  called  the  treasury,  and  we 
hear  of  a  building  by  this  name  in  Josephus.'  From  the  position 
Jesus  occupied,  he  watched  the  gi\ers  throw  in  their  offerings. 
Many  wealthy  people  came,  and  gave  liberally  :  '  and  beheld  how 
the  multitude  cast  money  (Gr.  brass)  into  the  treasury  :  and  many 
that  were  rich  cast  in  much.'  Luke's  account  indicates  that  rich 
persons  chiefly  were  the  givers.  '  And  he  looked  up,  and  saw  the 
rich  men  that  Avere  casting  their  gifts  into  the  treasury  (Or,  And  saw 
them  that  were  casting  their  gifts  into  the  treasury,  and  they  were 
rich).'  But  among  them  there  came  one  poor  widow  woman,  who 
put  in  two  coins  of  the  smallest  value.  '  And  there  came  a  (Gr.  one) 
poor  widow,  and  she  cast  in  two  mites,  which  make  a  farthing.' 
Sharpe  renders  literally  :  '  two  Lepta,  that  is,  a  quodrantes.'  Alford 
explains  that  a  mite  was  the  smallest  Jewish  coin,  and  its  value 
about  yly-  of  a  denarius.  As  the  denarius  represented  the  day  wage 
of  a  vineyard  labourer,  which  may  be  roughly  taken  as  equivalent  to 
five  shillings,  the  two  mites  were  equivalent  to  a  gift  of  one  penny  of 
our  money.  From  Mark's  account  it  appears  that  only  'brass,' 
rendered  by  Young  and  Sharpe  '  copper,'  was  deposited.  Whatever 
the  reason  for  that  custom,  it  at  all  events  made  the  giving  of  much 
needlessly  conspicuous,  and  the  giving  of  a  trifle  painfully  prominent 
by  comparison.  This  would  naturally  deter  the  poor  in  general  from 
giving  at  all.  The  Authorised  Version  has  in  Mark,  '  a  certain  poor 
widow,'  which  is  rendered  by  Tischendorf  as  well  as  by  the  Eevisers 
marginally,  '  one  poor  widow.'  Luke  says  :  '  And  he  saw  a  certain 
poor  widow  casting  in  thither  two  mites.'  From  the  expressions 
'  one  '  and  'a  certain,'  it  is  obvious  that  not  many  of  that  class  came 
to  drop  in  with  the  fingers  coin  which  others  could  throw  in  by 


PAKT  II.]        A    STUDY    OF    THE    FOUR    (UtSFELS.  345 

liandfuls.  The  quiok  eye  of  Jesus  observed  both  the  giver  and  her 
gift,  and  his  mind  was  so  impressed  thereby  that  he  at  once 
summoned  his  disciples  to  approach,  that  he  might  impart  tlie  lesson 
he  would  have  them  draw  from  the  circumstance.  '  And  he  called  vi  M:uk  43 
unto  him  his  disciples,'  rendered  by  Young  literally,  '  And  having 
called  up  his  discii)les.'  Being  gathered  round  him,  they  found  that 
he  wished  simply  to  explain  to  them  that  this  one  woman  had  given 
more  than  all  the  rest.  '  And  said  unto  them,  Verily  I  say  unto  you,  .,  •«•$ 
This  poor  widow  cast  in  more  than  all  they  wdiich  are  casting  into 
the  treasury.'  Luke  is  to  the  same  effect :  '  And  he  said,  Of  a  truth  -'i  i.uke:; 
I  say  unto  you,  This  poor  widow  cast  in  more  than  they  all.'  It  is 
not  '  more  than  any  one  of  them  : '  so  that  the  meaning  may  be, 
'  more  than  all  of  them  together.'  In  either  sense,  that  was  an 
extraordinary  assertion.  Jesus  proceeded  to  justify  it  by  explaining 
his  meaning.  '  For  they  all  did  cast  in  of  their  superfluity  ;  but  she  12  Mark  14 
of  her  want  did  cast  in  all  she  had,  even  all  her  living.'  Luke  :  '  For  -'i  Luko  4 
all  these  did  of  their  superfluity  cast  in  unto  the  gifts  :  but  she  of 
her  want  did  cast  in  all  the  living  that  she  had.'  The  words 
'  of  God '  after  '  gifts,'  are  now  omitted,  not  being  in  the  two  oldest 
MSS.  How  did  Jesus  know  that  this  was  '  all  her  living '  'i  Wc 
need  not  assume  the  exercise  of  any  supernatural  prescience  on  his 
part.  Alford  gives  no  hint  of  any  sucli  suggestion  by  commentators. 
An  open,  empty  purse  in  the  woman's  hand  may  have  spoken  volumes 
to  the  discerning  eye  of  Jesus.  In  what  sense  are  we  to  understand 
the  statement  that  the  woman  gave  '  more  than  they  all '  ?  Literally, 
as  a  bare  matter  of  fact,  that  was  not  the  case.  Jesus  was  comparing 
the  means  of  the  givers,  the  poverty  of  the  woman  with  the  super- 
fluity of  the  others.  Her  gift,  so  viewed,  was  out  of  all  proportion 
to  theirs.  Alford's  comment  on  the  word  '  more  '  is  :  '  more,  in  GocVs 
reckoning ;  more  for  her  oivn  stewardship  of  the  goods  enti'usted  to 
her  care.'  That  is  introducing  two  ideas  which  are  not  in  the  saying 
of  Jesus.  He  made  no  allusion  to  Divine  oversight  and  approval, 
or  to  responsibility  towards  God,  with  respect  to  giving.  The 
woman  had  supplied  a  splendid  example  of  liberality  ;  Jesus  drew 
the  attention  of  the  disciples  to  the  generosity  of  the  deed,  but  not  a 
word  did  he  add  in  commendation  of  it,  or  of  exhortation  to  do  like- 
wise. He  fixed  their  minds  simply  and  entirely  upon  the  fact,  that 
the  small  donation  of  the  woman  was  '  more  '  in  his  eyes  than  the 
much  larger  gifts  of  others.  It  is  not  likely  that  Jesus  desired  that 
people  should  impoverish  themselves  to  supply  funds  for  religious 
purposes,  knowing  as  he  did  that  the  money  would  be  applied  under 
the  direction  of  chief  priests,  Pharisees,  scribes  and  leading  men  of 
the  city,  who  were  banded  together  in  active  opposition  to  himself 
and  the  preaching  of  the  kingdom  of  God.  If  the  money  was  set 
apart  for  the  repair  and  decoration  of  the  temple,  how  could  he  urge 
to  liberality,  knowing  well  that  not  one  stone  should  be  left  upon 
another,  which  should  not  be  thrown  down  ?  If  the  money  went  to 
the  poor,  why  should  the  poorest  of  the  poor  contribute,  thus 
bringing  about  the  very  destitution  sought  to  be  relieved  ?  Is  it 
reasonable  to  suppose  that  Jesus  meant  that  the  rich  ought  to  strip 
themselves  of  all  their  wealth,  leaAing  themselves  penniless  like  this 
poor  widow  ?  Or  that  because  they  did  not,  and  she  gave  her  all, 
they  were  condemned,  and  she  approved,  in  the  sight  of  God  and 


346  THE    KING    AND    THE    KINGDOM:  [part  ii. 

Jesus  ?  Nothing  of  tlie  kind.  Such  ideas  are  not  deducible  from  the 
words  of  Jesus.  We  shall  fall  into  error,  one  way  or  another,  if  we 
attempt  to  press  them  beyond  the  point  at  which  he  aimed.  Let  us 
abide  by  the  facts  :  he  saw  many  rich,  giving-  much,  and  one  poor 
widow  who  gave  her  all, — a  penny  ;  and  he  said  that  her  gift  was 
'  more '  than  all  the  others  put  together.  He  brings  into  prominence, 
and  sets  a  high  value  upon  a  small  donation.  There  had  been  a 
grave  fault,  in  his  eyes,  about  this  collection  :  it  had  been  confined 
to  rich  men  and  large  gifts,  and  the  poor,  with  their  trifles,  had  been 
conspicuous,  to  his  mind,  by  their  absence.  He  hailed  the  coming  of 
this  '  one  poor  widow  '  as  a  happy  augury  of  that  brotherhood  of  aim 
and  effort  which  it  was  the  purpose  of  his  life  to  establish  among 
mankind.     With  loving  eyes  he  watched  her  in  the  act  of  giving, 

.s  ii.  Cor.  -1  and  was  charmed  to  witness  '  her  deep  poverty  abounding  unto  the 
riches  of  her  liberality.'  He  rejoiced,  as  Paul  did  subsequently  over 
..  '■'  the  Macedonians  when  he  said  :  '  For  according  to  their  power  .  .  .  yea, 
and  beyond  their  power,  thei/  gave,  of  their  own  accord.'  Some  may 
think  that  Jesus  called  up  his  disciples  merely  for  the  purpose  of 
pointing  out  the  woman  and  eulogising  her  generous  impulse.  It  is 
more  probable  that  he  had  an  intention  of  teaching  something  ;  and 
if  we  are  to  draw  a  lesson  for  ourselves  from  his  words,  they  are  most 
naturally  to  be  taken  as  pointing  to  :  (1)  The  duty  of  combined 
eflfbrt,  and  (2)  The  value  of  small  donations. 

All  great  enterprises  require  for  their  performance,  unity  of  pur- 
pose in  many  minds,  and  the  hearty  co-operation  of  a  multitude  of 
willing  hearts  and  hands.  The  solitary  thinker,  with  whom  a  great 
idea  originates,  doubtless  does  more  for  the  world's  advancement 
than  the  army  of  busy  workers  by  whom  it  is  subsequently  carried 
out.  But  if  the  one  is  the  soul  of  a  grand  work,  the  others  constitute 
its  body,  and  as  the  body  without  the  soul  is  dead,  so  the  soul  with- 
out the  body  is  powerless.  Any  j)lans  for  the  common  welfare  call 
for  the  aid  of  the  entire  community.  That  is  a  general  truth  ;  and 
the  more  clearly  it  is  apprehended  and  acted  upon,  the  more  will 
social  progress  be  accelerated.  Tliat  has  come  to  be  recognised,  late 
indeed  in  human  history,  as  an  article  in  the  creed  of  advanced 
politicians.  Democracy  means,  not  merely  self-government,  but  safe 
government :  Avithout  the  aid,  the  check,  the  combined  judgment  of 
the  masses,  class  rulership  degenerates  into  selfishness  and  tyranny. 
The  gospel  of  Christ  is  a  jilan  for  ameliorating  the  condition  of  man- 
kind, not  in  one  particular  direction  only,  that  of  theology,  but  in  all 
directions.  The  church  of  Christ  is  simply  an  assembly  of  his 
followers  and  believers.  He  came  to  break  down  the  barriers  between 
Jew  and  Gentile,  nation  and  nation,  class  and  class,  and  to  unite  the 

;:i:.ii.-2s  entire  human  family  in  one  organic  whole.  'There  can  be  neither 
Jevv'  nor  Greek,  there  can  be  neither  bond  nor  free,  there  can  be  no 
male  and  female  :  for  ye  are  all  one  man'wx  Christ  Jesus.'  That  was 
the  idea  and  purpose  in  the  mind  of  Jesus,  as  interpreted  and  realised 
by  the  apostle  Paul,  who  regarded  the  entire  Christian  brotherhood 
as  an  instrument,  specially  designed  by  God,  for  the  carrying  out  of 

•1  Kiiii.  1(1  good  works.  He  wrote  :  '  Fen-  we  are  his  workmanship,  created  in 
C'hrist  Jesus  for  good  works,  which  God  afore  prepared  that  we  should 
walk  in  them.'  These  '  good  works  '  have  been  too  much  restricted 
to  one  or  two  particular  channels  :  the  relief  of  poverty  and  sickness. 


PART  II.]        A    8TUDY    OF    THE    FOUR    GOSPELS.  347 

and  the  propagation  of  the  oosjk'I  in  its  tlieological  conception  as  a 
scheme  of  individual  salvation.  The  combined  efforts  of^  the  Christian 
community  should  embrace  a  wider  field  of  action.  The  depressed, 
degraded  condition  of  the  masses,  is  a  scandal  to  our  profession  of 
Christianity.  (Jeneration  after  generation  passes,  with  but  small 
signs  of  improvement  in  that  respect :  the  giving  of  money  for  the 
relief  of  destitution  has  been  a  salve  to  the  consciences  of  the  rich, 
but  has  only  still  further  jiauperised  the  poor,  and  will  never  lift  them 
out  of  the  mire.  The  labouring  class,  as  a  whole,  has  not  received, 
and  still  does  not  receive,  a  fair  share  of  the  profits  arising  out  of 
labour.  To  the  recognition  of  this  truth,  and  the  solution  of  the 
problems  connected  with  it,  the  thoughts  and  aims  of  Christians 
should  be  directed,  rather  than  to  the  system  of  hand-to-mouth 
alleviation  which  can  only  serve  to  perpetuate  the  evil.  Alas  !  this 
work,  in  which  Christians'  should  have  been  foremost,  has  been  left 
to  philosophers,  socialists  secularists.  These  men  are  sufficiently 
emancipated  from  traditional  errors  of  faith  and  practice  to  discern 
the  truth  of  things  about  them,  and  have  not  shrunk  from  proclaim- 
ing existing  wrougs  and  evils,  from  investigating  their  proximate 
causes,  and  "seeking  some  method  for  their  remedy.  Shall  they  and 
their  followers  be  left  to  find  a  solution  for  themselves  ?  If  so,  it  will 
probably  be,  ultimately,  by  force  that  society  will  be  revolutionised. 
Let  Christian  philanthropists  join  hands  with  these  men,  who  have 
often  more  of  the  spirit  of  Jesus  than  they  have  who  denounce  and 
defame  them.  The  church  of  Christ  should  lay  its  hand  to  this 
plough,  and  not  look  back,  until  it  has  furrowed  out  a  scheme  of  co- 
operation which  will  ensure  to  every  honest,  steady  working  man  and 
woman  sufficient  for  the  decent  upbringing  of  a  family  without 
recourse  to  alms  in  any  shape.  As  workers  rise,  idlers  must  sink  ; 
as  the  labouring  class  claims  and  receives  its  fair  recompense  of 
reward,  the  making  of  huge  fortunes  will  become  difficult,  if  not 
impossible.  Those  who  possess  them  have  scarcely  reason  to  be  con- 
gratulated, at  least  in  the  judgment  of  the  apostle  James,  who  wrote : 
*  Go  to  now,  ye  rich,  weep  and  howl  for  your  miseries  that  are  coming  .3  james  1-3 
upon  you.  Your  riches  are  corrupted,  and  your  garments  are  moth- 
eaten.  Your  gold  and  siher  are  rusted  ;  and  their  rust  shall  be  for 
a  testimony  against  you,  and  shall  eat  your  flesh  as  fire.'  Let  us  not, 
however,  misunderstand  or  misapply  those  strong  words.  They  were 
obviously  dictated  by  a  deep  sense  of  wrong  and  injustice.  If  they 
were  a  bare  denunciation  of  rich  men  simply  as  being  rich,  as  well 
might  James  have  denounced  the  increase  of  the  fields  and  flocks, 
and  the  fruits  hanging  upon  the  trees.  The  apostle  brings  grave 
charges.  He  accuses  the  rich  of  letting  their  wealth  lie  idle.  'Your 
riches  are  corrupted,  and  your  garments  are  moth-eaten.'  It  is  the 
'  rust '  of  their  treasures  which  testifies  against  the  owners.  And  he 
reproaches  them  further  for  fraudulently  keeping  back  the  wages  of 
their  harvestmen,  whilst  living  delicately  on  the  earth  and  taking 
their  pleasure,  and  for  condemning  and  killing  the  righteous.  With 
our  full  tides  of  commerce,  the  rich  are  not  tempted  to  let  their 
wealth  lie  idle  :  it  is  used  to  their  profit  and  that  of  the  community, 
either  by  themselves  or  those  to  whom  they  loan  it.  But  the  greed 
of  profit-making  has  brought  about  a  sad  condition  of  affairs.  Any 
shed  which  will  hold  machinery  is  deemed  good  enough  for  the  work- 


348  THE   KING    AND    THE    KINGDOM:  [part  ii. 

men  who  tend  it.  ITnlovely  and  unsanitary  surroundings,  from  the 
cradle  to  the  grave,  are  the  lot  of  millions  of  our  brother  toilers. 
From  the  noise  and  grime  of  the  workshop,  they  go  to  so-called 
'  homes,'  squalid,  filthy,  unhealthy  in  the  extreme.  Wages  are  cut 
down  to  the  lowest  level  of  existence,  rents  are  raised  to  the  highest 
point,  and  the  poor  themselves  have  come  to  deem  it  cause  for  self- 
congratulation  if  only  they  can  earn  enough  to  keep  body  and  soul 
together,  utihsing  the  early  labours  of  their  children,  whom  they  had 
till  lately  no  opportunity  of  educating.  To  remedy  this  state  of 
things.  Christians  should  join  heart  to  heart  and  hand  to  hand. 
There  are  signs  of  improvement ;  but  the  dawn  of  hope  for  the 
opi)ressed,  aye  !  the  defrauded  labourers,  is  as  yet  faint  and  flickering, 
and  may  die  out  altogether,  or  take  many  generations  before  it 
gathers  light  and  strength  enough  to  enable  the  community  at  large 
to  recognise  the  causes  of  the  evil  and  apply  an  effectual  remedy. 
That  remedy  must  come,  sooner  or  later,  either  througli  Christianity 
or  Socialism.  The  gospel  of  Jesus  is  all-sufficient,  if  only  we  under- 
stand and  use  it  rightly.  If  every  Christian  employer  will  face  his 
responsibility  and  do  his  part,  adjuring  '  the  dismal  science '  of 
political  economy,  falsely  so-called,  and  worshipping  Christ  as  God, 
instead  of  Mammon,  then  society  Avill  indeed  mount  the  hill  of  pro- 
gress, and  begin  to  breathe  the  free  air  of  that  heavenly  kingdom 
which  Jesus  came  to  establish  on  the  earth.  If  that  is  our  ideal,  we 
shall  learn  to  look  upon  almsgiving,  not  as  a  meritorious  offering  to 
God  and  a  benefit  to  mankind,  but  as  a  wretched  palliative  of  the 
woi'ld's  sores  and  wrongs,  needful  and  acceptable  only  as  a  temporary 
expedient  to  supply  the  lack  of  that  common  justice  which  man  owes 
to  man. 

As  regards  the  propagation  of  the  gospel,  enormous  sums  are  year 
after  year  collected  and  spent  with  that  object.  Home  and  foreign 
missions  are  pleaded  for  with  earnest  eloquence,  and  are  set  on  foot 
and  supported  by  a  multitude  of  donations.  To  cast  a  doubt  upon 
the  value  of  this  work,  will  seem  to  many  little  shoit  of  profanation, 
even  blasphemy.  But,  at  the  utmost,  what  the  preaching  of  the 
gospel  has  done  for  England  and  for  Europe  generally,  it  may  be  ex- 
pected, in  the  course  of  time,  to  do  for  other  parts  of  the  world.  Is 
the  tone  of  so-called  Christian  society  among  ourselves,  Christ-like  or 
the  reverse  ?  According  to  our  judgment  on  that  question,  will  be 
our  view  of  the  value  or  worthlessness  of  missionary  enterprises.  If 
Christianity  was  intended  by  its  Founder  to  be  the  establishment  of 
the  kingdom  of  heaven  upon  earth,  then  we  have  it  not  amongst  us, 
nor  can  it  come  until  war  and  mammon-worship  shall  have  become 
things  of  the  past.  At  present  they  are  rampant  in  the  nations  which 
profess  and  believe  themselves  to  be  more  or  less  christianised  ;  and 
as  these  evils  are  promoted  and  perpetuated  by  those  who  hold  front 
rank  in  society,  and  who  are  the  highest  exponents  of  our  creed  and 
practice,  they  may  be  taken,  apart  from  the  prevailing  flood  of 
immorality  and  injustice,  as  indexing  our  true,  or  flxlse,  position  as 
followers  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth.  If,  however,  the  salvation  of  Christ 
is  deemed  a  personal  and  individual  rather  than  social  matter,  there 
is  an  easy  way  of  escape  from  the  terrible  conclusion  which  otherwise 
cannot  be  gainsaid.  And  not  only  is  that  assumption  made,  pro- 
claimed, insisted  upon,  but  it  is  further  urged  that  Christ  offers  us 


PART  II.]        J    STUDY    OF   THE   FOUR    GOSPELS.  349 

some  mysterious  kind  of  sonl-salvation,  to  take  eifect  hereafter,  to 
save  us  in  the  world  to  come  from  the  consequences  of  our  earthly  mis- 
doings, atid  there,  not  here,  to  transform  his  people  into  his  own  like- 
ness. Faith  in  Jesus  as  a  Saviour  is  considered  all  sufficient,  even 
thouo^h  it  be  an  instantaneous  mental  process,  to  make  safe  and  happy 
everlastingly  those  who  have  it ;  and  it  is  an  unquestionable,  undoubted 
fact  that  clergyman  will  and  do  preach  that  doctrine  to  vilest 
crimiuals,  and  do  not  shrink  from  holding  out  that  hope,  as  the  hope 
of  the  gospel,  to  the  most  hardened  murderer,  even  when  the  rope  is 
already  round  his  neck.  It  is  all  with  the  best  intentions,  the 
highest  motives,  the  most  perfect  conviction  that  God's  word  justifies 
the  statements  made.  But  the  men  who  thus  interpret  it  are,  to  say 
the  least,  fallible,  and  we  all  know,  or  have  the  means  of  knowing, 
that  this  is  but  one  phase  of  the  erroneous  system  of  doctrinal 
teaching  which  has  assumed  to  itself  the  name  of  Christianity.  What 
good  fruit  can  be  expected  from  the  promulgation  of  such  a  creed  ? 
AVhat  benefit  could  have  accrued  in  bygone  times  from  any  missionary 
enterprise  started  under  the  auspices  of  Torquemada  and  the  Holy 
Inquisition?  The  only  gospel  given  us  to  preach  is  the 'gospel  of  ■*^''''^- -^ 
the  kingdom;'  and  until  that  fundamental  truth  is  recognised,  it 
will  avail  little  to  go  about  preaching  a  personal  salvation,  the  chief 
benefit  of  which  will  be  realised  hereafter,  in  the  hour  of  death  and 
in  a  day  of  judgment.  Our  missions  to  the  heathen  world  cannot 
l)ear  the  test  of  impartial  investigation,  and  the  time  is  come  for 
applying  it.  Canon  Isaac  Taylor  has  written  an  article  in  the 
Fortnightl!/  Reinew  of  October,  1888,  entitled,  'The  great  missionary 
failure.'  What  results  can  be  shown  for  the  men  and  money  employed 
in  the  work  ?  Here  are  some  of  the  curiosities  of  the  Mission 
Budget  which  Canon  Taylor  has  collected.  '  Last  year  in  Ceylon 
424  agents  of  the  Church  Missionary  Society  spent  £11,003  15s.  Id. 
in  making  11)0  adult  converts  out  of  a  population  of  nearly  three 
millions,  but  the  relapses  were  more  numerous  than  the  converts,  as 
there  was  a  decrease  of  14o  in  the  native  Christian  adherents.  In 
China  247  agents  of  the  same  society  spent  £14,875  3s.  in  making 
1(37  converts  out  of  a  population  of  382,(100,000,  In  Northeiii 
India  (Bengal,  Bombay,  and  the  North  West  Provinces),  715  agents 
made  173  converts  at  a  cost  of  £34,186  2s.  hd.'  And  many  of  the 
so-called  '  converts '  would  be  dear  at  any  price.  Canon  Taylor  says  : 
*  In  the  missions  to  Egypt,  Persia,  Palestine,  and  Arabia,  Avhere  there 
are  no  heathen,  the  Church  Missionary  Society  employs  119  agents, 
and  has  spent  £23,545  4s.  Id.  in  the  last  two  years.  The  net  results 
are  nil.  In  Egypt,  last  year,  there  were  two  "  inquirers,"  one  a 
negro  and  the  other  an  Egyptian,  but  the  inquiries  did  not  lead  to 
any  further  results.  In  Araljia  a  sick  robber  who  was  doctored  by  a 
missionary  promised  to  abstain  from  robbing  for  ten  days.  In 
Palestine,  the  one  Moslem  convert  of  last  year,  a  weak-minded 
orphan  girl  who  required  constant  guidance,  and  for  whom  the 
prayers  of  all  English  Christians  were  invoked,  has  gone  over  to 
Rome,  and  is  now  immured  in  a  nunnery.  In  the  oldest  of  our 
West  African  possessions  all  the  unrepentant  Magdalens  of  the  chief 
city  are  professing  Christians,  and  the  most  notorious  one  in  the 
place  boasts  that  she  "  never  missed  going  to  Church  on  a  Communion 
ijunday."     Three   years   ago,    in   a  nominally   Christian   village,  a 


350  THE    KING    AND    THE   KINGDOM:  [part  ii. 

quarrel  broke  out,  and  not  a  few  were  killed.  The  victors  cooked 
and  ate  the  bodies  of  the  slain.  As  a  punishment,  the  native  pastoi- 
announced  that  they  were  "  suspended  from  Church  privile,o-es." 
Cannibalism  is  punished  by  temporary  exclusion  from  the  Holy  Com- 
munion ! '  As  an  instance  of  'squabbles  among  the  missionaries,' 
Canon  Taylor  relates  the  following  :  '  Mr.  Squires,  the  local  secretary 
of  the  Church  Missionary  Society  in  the  Bombay  Presidency,  states 
that  "  one  of  the  greatest  hindrances  to  missionary  effort  is  the 
existence  of  so  many  Christians  who  do  not  belong  to  any  of  the 
Protestant  societies.  Strange  to  say,  the  existence  of  so  many 
Christians  is  a  great  hindrance  to  the  spread  of  Christianity! 
Mr.  Squires,  with  his  97  assistants,  baptized  last  year  36  adults  and 
92  children,  at  a  cost  of  £9441  7s.  \d.,  and  the  converts  made  by 
his  society,  after  GG  years  of  labour,  do  not  amount  to  2000  ;  while 
the  devoted  Eoman  priests  are  converting,  educating,  and  consoling- 
thousands  upon  thousands,  at  a  nominal  cost,  which  comes,  not  from 
any  wealthy  society,  but  mainly  from  the  converts  themselves.  No 
wonder  Mr.  Squires  is  jealous  of  his  successful  rivals.' 

Not  much  money  is  wanted,  or  can  avail,  for  the  conversion  of  the 
world.     How  much  had  the  twelve  apostles  between  them  ?     Abso- 
lutely nothing  :  for  Jesus  insisted  upon  his  disciples  going  forth 
with  no  money  in  their  purses.    The  alDove  hint  about  the  Eomanists 
indicates  that  the  same  policy  would  answer  now.     Christian  men  are 
the  primary  requisite,  and  they  must  be  of  the  right  stamp.     It  is 
not  necessary  to  go  back  to  Buddha  or  Saint  Paul  for  types  of  the 
ideal  missionary.     There  are,  as  Canon  Taylor  points  out,  plenty  of 
modern  instances.      The  '  Oxford   Brethren '  at    Calcutta   are  one. 
The  Salvation  Army  is  another  :  '  Mr.  Tucker,  their  leader,  has  given 
proof  of  his  sincerity  by  surrendering  a  lucrative  post  in  the  Indian 
Civil   Service.     He   heads   a   barefooted  regiment  of  two  hundred 
soldiers,  who  go  for  life,  who  give  up  everything  they  have,  Avho 
receive  no  payment,  but  are  content  with  a  bare  subsistence.     They 
abstain  from  the  flesh  of   animals,  the  slaughter  of   which   is   an 
abomination  to  the  Hindu  ;  they  touch  no  alcohol  ;  their  food  is  a 
handful  of  rice  and  curry,  which  they  beg  from  day  to  day  from  those 
to  whom  they  minister.     Like  the  natives  they  oil  their  bodies  with 
colza  oil,  they  go  barefoot,  with  turbans  to  protect  them  from  the 
sun,  and  their  dress  is  a  few  yards  of  calico,  costing  about  bs.     The 
whole  maintenance  of  each  missionary  does  not  exceed  2s.  a  week,  or 
£0   a  year.     Like   the  successful  Moravian  missionaries  in  South 
Africa  or  the  West  Indies  their  object  is  to  become  natives,  to  live 
among  the  natives  exactly  as  the  natives  live,  simply  exhibiting  a 
nobler  life  and  higher  aims.     They  never  argue,  or  discuss  doctrines, 
or  go  into  the  "  evidences  "  of  Christianity.    They  exhibit  the  ascetic 
life  which  appeals  so  strongly  to  the  Hindu.     They  say,  "  See  what 
our  religion  does  for  us,  how  happy  it  makes  us,  and  how  it  enables 
us  to  despise  poverty  and  conquer  the  troubles  of  the  world,  how  it 
makes  us  contented  and  cheerful  and  free  from  sin  "...  As  one  of 
the  greatest  missionaries  has  said,  The  best  preachers  are  not  our 
words,  but  our  lives  ;  and  our  deaths,  if  need  be,  are  better  preachers 
still.     We  must  hold  up  the  spectacle  of  devoted  Jives  to  enable  the 
people   to   understand   the   first   elements    of    the   Christian   faith. 
General  Gordon,  in  one  of  his  last  letters,  has  told  us  the  same  hard 


PART  11.]         A    STUDY    OF    THE    FOUL'    (U)SFELS.  351 

truth.  Writino"  from  Khartoum,  he  says,  in  his  treiicliant  style  : 
"  There  is  not  the  least  doubt  that  there  is  an  immense  vir<2;in  field 
for  an  aposile  in  these  countries  amon<^'  the  black  tribes.  But  where 
will  you  find  an  apostle  ?  A  man  must  ,t>'ive  np  everythiui,^,  under- 
stand,— evpryUiing,  evcrylhituj  l  No  half  or  three-quarter  measures 
will  do.  He  must  be  dead  to  the  world,  have  no  ties  of  any  sort, 
and  long  for  death  when  it  may  please  Uod  to  take  him.  There  are 
few,  very  few,  such.     And  yet  what  a  field  !  " ' 

That  a  Canon  of  the  Church  of  England  should  thus  boldly  recog- 
nise and  expose  the  shortcomings  and  deceptiveness  of  her  missionary 
system,  is  a  happy  augury  for  the  future.  The  ceaseless  cry  for 
money,  money,  as  the  prime  requisite  for  the  extension  of  Chris- 
tianity, is  a  degradation  of  the  true  ideal  of  the  kingdom  of  Cod.  If 
that  is  to  be  established,  at  home  or  abroad,  the  enei'gies  of  believers 
must  be  directed  into  other  and  healthier  channels.  Many  a  good 
cause  languishes  for  lack  of  the  funds  which  are  now  expended  in 
various  enterprises  assumed  to  be  sacred,  but  which  represent  chiefly 
the  theological  conceptions  or  misconceptions  of  their  founders  and 
supporters.  Societies  were  established  by  our  forefathers — take  the 
Tieligious  Tract  Society  as  a  conspicuous  example — for  the  purpose  of 
disseminating  their  views  of  the  plan  of  salvation,  and  of  persuading 
the  readers  of  their  leaflets  and  books  to  accept  their  doctrines,  that 
they  might  '  believe  and  be  saved.'  All  the  errors  and  crudities 
existent  in  the  belief  of  a  bygone  generation  have  thus  been,  figura- 
ti\ely  and  literally,  stereotyped,  and  handed  down  in  their  original 
form  to  the  present  day.  It  was  a  fundamental  and  inviolable  rule 
of  the  Religious  Tract  Society  to  issue  no  book  or  tract  which  did  not 
disclose  the  '  plan  of  salvation,'  the  mode  and  means  of  a  sinner's 
justification  in  the  sight  of  God,  as  interpreted  by  the  founders  and 
agents  of  the  Society,  The  widening  and  ripening  of  Christian 
thought  and  judgment  cannot  avail  to  modify  a  system  of  theological 
ideas  so  pertinaciously  insisted  upon  and  widely  disseminated.  Much 
of  the  so-called  '  religious '  literature  which  has  been  gratuitously 
showered  upon  the  masses  appears  to  minds  unwarped  by  dogmatic 
teaching,  in  some  things  foolish  and  in  others  revolting.  It  is  thrust 
into  the  hands  of  those  who  may  be  intellectually  incapable  of  think- 
ing and  judging  for  themselves  :  some  swallow  it,  as  they  would  a 
medicine  vouched  as  beneficial,  some  ojjenly  reject  it  as  a  nauseous 
compound,  the  majority  take  no  heed  of  it.  But  it  is  insisted  upon 
as  containing,  raultum  in  parvo,  the  Gospel,  the  whole  Gospel,  and 
nothing  but  the  Gospel.  There  has  been  a  deluge  of  tracts  which 
are  narrow-minded,  damnatory,  repulsive,  which  condemn  innocent 
enjoyment  as  sinful  '  worldliness,'  describe  '  faith  '  as  though  it  were 
a  magic  process  instantaneously  '  saving '  the  vilest,  paint  '  hell '  in 
frightful  colours,  proclaim  abominable  doctrines  of  '  endless  torment,' 
and  yield  no  higher  notion  of  *  salvation"  than  that  of  being  '  reli- 
gious '  on  earth  and  '  happy  for  ever  '  in  heaven.  The  only  limit  to 
the  printing  and  dissemination  of  these  dogmas  is  the  amount  of 
money  subscribed  for  the  purpose ;  as  long  as  people  continue  to  give, 
so  long  will  such  Societies  go  on  publishing  and  distributing.  It  is 
time  that  better  and  more  beneficent  uses  should  be  found  for 
Christian  generosity.  The  giving  of  money  involves  responsibility 
to  the  donors  as  well  as  to  the  distributors.     Support  should  be  with- 


352  THE    KING    AND    THE    KINGDOM:  [pakt  ii. 

held  from  the  religious  literature  which  is  put,  with  the  best  inten- 
tions, but  often  with  sad  want  of  judgment  and  grave  perversions  of 
'  the  gospel,'  into  the  hands  of  the  young  and  ignorant. 

The  claims  upon  Christian  liberality  are  many,  and  the  calls  made 
upon  it  are  innumerable.  How  to  bestow  alms  without  producing 
ultimate  mischief  as  well  as  doing  apparent  present  good,  is  a  diffi- 
cult problem.  Probably  Hospitals  stand  foremost,  and  deserve  the 
largest  amount  of  support.  But  it  should  rather  be  in  maintaining 
those  in  existence  than  in  building  new  ones.  The  upper  and  middle 
classes  rarely  resort  to  them,  and  when  the  working  class  rises  to  its 
proper  level  of  remuneration  and  self-dependence,  the  need  for 
gratuitous  relief  in  sickness  and  accident  will  have  passed  away. 
That  condition  of  things  has  been  brought  about  with  respect  to 
education  :  the  Board  Schools  have  rendered  Voluntary  Schools, 
supported  by  priv^ate  subscriptions,  superfluous.  Other  Institutions 
need  assistance,  not  permanently,  but  as  being  '  good  by  reason  of 
the  present  distress.'  Reformatories,  Refuges  and  Charity  Organisa- 
tions come  under  this  category.  Efforts  on  behalf  of  children  deserve 
every  encouragement,  such  as  Dr.  Barnardo's,  and  Infant  and  Orphan 
Asylums,  though  as  society  advances  towards  perfection  they  will 
cease  to  be  required.  Institutions  for  the  Blind,  Deaf  and  Dumb, 
Cripples  and  Idiots,  demand  sympathy  and  support.  Yet  there  is  no 
reason  why  our  combined  eftbrts  for  good  should  always  take  the 
form  of  charity.  Probably  the  utmost  amount  of  benefit  to  the 
labouring  poor  would  be  secured  by  a  judicious  investment  of  capital 
in  Model  Dwellings,  the  funds  being  provided  by  a  multitude  of 
small  shareholders  as  w^ell  as  by  those  more  wealthy.  The  East  End 
People's  Palace  in  London  marks  a  new  departure  :  in  such  a  work. 
Christians,  Socialists,  Democrats,  Aristocrats,  can  join  hands  and 
efforts,  and  the  gradual  raising  of  the  masses  by  that  and  other  means 
will  do  more  towards  the  realisation  of  'the  kingdom  of  heaven,' 
than  all  the  preaching  and  mission-work  in  the  world. 

(2)  The  full  benefit  of  combined  effort  cannot,  however,  be  attained 
until  some  plan  is  devised  for  gathering  in,  methodically  and  con- 
tinuously, the  smallest  contributions.  Large  donations  are  impera- 
tively required  ;  those  that  are  rich  must  continue  to  give  much,  but 
the  trifles  of  the  multitude,  if  carefully  collected,  would  probably 
amount  to  much  more.  This  branch  of  charity  is  as  yet  an  untilled 
field  which  w'ould  amply  repay  the  labour  of  cultivation.  The  sub- 
scription lists  of  our  most  important  institutions  show  sums  of  two 
guineas,  one  guinea,  half  a  guinea,  fewer  of  five  shillings,  and  fewer 
still  made  up  of  yet  smaller  items,  which  are  generally  summarised 
into  one  comparatively  insignificant  total.  In  the  '  Globe  '  news- 
paper of  8  October,  1888,  there  appeared  a  short  article  headed, 
'  Charitable  Appeals.  Many  a  mickle  maks  a  muckle.'  The  following 
extracts  bear  on  this  subject.  '  One  of  the  latest  developments  of 
charity  has  been  towards  supplying  poor  town  children  with  country 
holidays.  In  the  pages  of  daily  and  weekly  papers,  and  also  in  the 
magazines,  there  have  been  numerous  appeals  for  funds  for  this 
object.  The  chief  branch  of  this  Country  Holiday  charity,  which 
has  its  offices  in  Buckingham  Street,  Strand,  and  of  which  the 
Princess  of  Wales  is  patroness,  has  already  boarded  out  over  lo,00(» 
children  for  a  fortnight,  at  a  charge  of  ten  shillings  a  child.     The 


PART  II.]         A    STUDY   OF    THE   FOUR    GOSPELS.  353 

Fresh  Air  Mission  has  boarded  out  lOUO  children  ;  tlie  Rev.  A. 
Sfcyleman  Hei-ring  has  boarded  out  400  ;  Miss  Edifch  Woodworth's 
Buttercup  and  Daisy  Fund  provided  a  holiday  for  300  ;  and  the 
Ragged  School  Union  and  numerous  other  societies  or  private  indi- 
viduals have  worked  in  the  same  direction.  Nor  docs  this  movement 
flourish  in  London  only  ;  there  is  a  committee  in  (ilasgow  which  has 
sent  over  oOOO  children  into  the  country,  and  Edinburgh  has  a 
holiday-house  under  the  shadow  of  the  purple  Pentlands,  which  is 
entirely  given  np  to  poor  children  throughout  the  summer  .  .  . 
Now,  who  supply  the  funds  for  all  these  holidays  ?  Who  are  the 
people  who  answer  the  numerous  appeals  which  are  to  be  scon  in 
every  paper  duriug  the  summer  montlis  ?  Doubtless  these  questions 
must  have  occurred,  to  many  who  have  hesitated  to  send  their  mite, 
or  not  thought  it  worth  while  to  get  a  postal  order  for  half-a-crowu, 
though  they  have  recognised  the  merits  of  the  charity  which  adver- 
tised. Take  the  first  (iO  letters  received  in  the  course  of  a  fortnight 
in  answer  to  an  ajipeal  which  appeared  in  a  magazine.'  A  cheque  for 
£10,  another  for  £4,  live  postal  orders  for  £1,  and  10  shilliugs  by 
nine  people.  '  But  it  was  the  small  sums  which  swelled  the  fund 
.  .  .  There  were  numerous  live  shilling,  half-crown,  and  shilling 
orders,  which,  added  to  the  cheques,  yielded  a  total  of  over  £50  .  .  . 
It  certainly  is  a  point  worth  remarking,  that  it  is  the  small  sums 
which  mount  up  and  send  thousands  of  children  away  to  breezy 
commons  for  healthy  holidays.  Only  £11)  out  of  the  first  £50 
received  for  the  charity  in  question  came  in  sums  over  10s.,  the 
other  £31  came  in  small  orders,  more  especially  in  half-crowns. 
There  are  plenty  of  people  who  would  never  miss  half-a-crown, 
would  indeed  give  it  gladly  were  it  not  for  the  trouble  of  procuring 
an  order  and  addressing  an  envelope.  It  is  not  meanness,  nor  want 
of  sympathy,  which  keeps  many  of  us  from  doing  what  we  could  ;  ifc 
is  simply  laziness,  and  an  erroneous  impression  that  it  is  not  worth 
while  to  be  at  the  trouble  of  sending  small  gifts.' 

The  facts  here  disclosed  are  very  interesting  and  important.  They 
illustrate  the  advantage  of  combined  effort,  and  point  to  the  necessity 
of  concentration.  The  'Country  Holiday  Charity,'  for  instance, 
might  do  all  the  advertising  and  collection,  simply  distributing  the 
subscriptions  among  the  half-dozen  other  organisation  ^^■hich  carry 
out  the  same  work.  What  an  immense  amount  of  useless  expense 
would  thereby  be  saved  !  Under  the  present  system,  our  charities 
compete  with  one  another,  like  rival  tradesmen.  For  the  sake  of 
economy,  there  should  be  a  system  of  combination,  so  that  one  small 
staff"  might  take  the  place  of  a  multitude  of  paid  officials,  one 
collector — if  any  collector  should  be  found  necessary — suffice  for 
several  charities,  and  one  advertisement  appeal  simultaneously  for 
all.  But  more  important  than  this,  and  serving  to  lead  up  to  this, 
would  be  the  establishment  of  a  few  General  Subscription  Funds,  one 
for  each  class  of  donations,  ten  shillings,  five  shillings,  half  a  crown, 
one  shilhng,  and  one  penny.  These  funds,  having  no  specific  objects, 
would  not  interfere  with  any  charitable  institution  :  they  would 
simply  advertise  for  and  receive  donations,  to  be  apportioned,  at  the 
discretion  of  the  committee,  among  existing  charities.  Each  of  the 
five  classes,  10s.,  5s.,  2s.  Gd.,  Is.,  and  Id.,  might  be  superintended  by 
a  committee  of  twelve  subscribers,  and  on  the  1st  of  January  or  the 


354  THE    KING    AND    THE    KINGDOM.  [part  ii. 

1st  of  July  in  each  year,  whether  Sunday  or  weekday,  at  a  fixed  liour, 
and  always  at  the  same  place,  so  that  no  expense  of  notification  would 
be  requisite,  the  subscribers  might  be  invited  to  attend  and  elect 
another  committee,  comprising  at  least  six  new  members.  That 
would  be  a  suflicient  safeguard  against  partiality  in  the  distribution 
of  the  funds,  which  might  otherwise  occur.  Any  persons  willing  to 
serve  on  the  Committee,  which  would  act  gratuitously,  should  send  in 
their  names  and  addresses  in  the  week  preceeding  the  meeting  of 
subscribers.  Some  such  plan  as  that  would  open  out  new  ground  for 
charitable  effort,  and  would  doul)tless  result  in  a  plenteous  harvest, 
sown,  reaped  and  gathered  in  Avithout  any  needless  expenditure  of 
time  or  money.  It  is  a  matter  of  j^rimary  importance  to  avoid  waste 
ill  our  methods  of  giving,  and  also  to  evoke  the  personal  interest  of 
the  givers.  There  are  indications  that  the  '  Half-crown  Fund '  would 
be  at  first  the  most  popular  and  productive,  but  the  '  Shilling  Fund ' 
and  '  Penny  Fund '  would  afford  the  poorest  an  opportunity  of 
giving,  and  of  controlling  their  own  special  Fund,  in  the  same  way 
as  others.  Possibly,  aye  I  probably,  the  result  would  show  that  the 
poor  had  given  more  than  all. 


(     i     ) 


INDEX   TO    QUOTATIONS    FKOM 
THE    GOSPELS. 


Ihe  large  Roman  figures  denote  the  Chapters.    The  first  column  shows  the  Verse, 
the  second  column  the  Series  or  Part,  and  the  third  column  the  Page. 


MATTHEW. 


1  i.    46 

2  46 


'6 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 


1 
2 
3 

4 
5 
6 

7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 


II. 

i.  21 

21 
22 
22 
22 
22 
23 
23 
23 
23 
23 
24 
24 
24 
24 
24 
25 
25 
25 
25 
25 
25 
25 


III. 

1  i. 

2 
3 

4 
5 
6 

7 


30 
31 
31 
31 
32 


34 
114 

37 
38 
38 
38 
39 


IV. 


1 

i.  49 

2 

49 

3 

49 

4 

50 

5 

50 

6 

50 

7 

50 

8 

51 

9 

51 

10 

52 

11 

53 

12 

58 

13 

58 

14 

59 

15 

59 

16 

59 

17 

84 

18 

19 

69 

20 

69 

21 

69 

22 

69 

23 

113 

24 

113 

25 

113 

8 
9 

32  10 

33  I  11 
33  I  12 
33  I  13 


14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
I  42 
43 
I  44 
!  45 
46 
47 
48 


115 
116 
116 
116 
117 
117 
119 
119 
119 
121 
122 
122 
122 
122 
122 
122 
123 
123 
123 
125 
125 
125 
125 
126 
126 
126 
126 
126 
127 
127 
128 
128 
128 
128 
128 
128 
128 
129 
129 
129 
130 
130 
130 
130 
131 


VI. 

i.  131 
132 
132 
132 
132 
134 
134 
134 
134 
134 
135 

136 
136 
136 
137 
137 
137 
137 
138 
138 
138 
139 
139 
139 
139 
139 
140 
140 
140 
142 


VII. 


1  i.  143 

2  143 


V. 

1  1.  115 

2  115 

3  115 


VI. 

1  i.  131 

2  131 

3  131 


145 
145 
145 
145 
146 
146 
146 
146 
146 
146 
147 
147 
147 
148 


17 

;^ii. 

i.  148 

1 

IX. 

i.  99 

11 

X. 

i.  214 

IS 

148 

2 

99 

12 

214 

19 

148 

3 

100 

13 

214 

20 

148 

4 

14 

214 

21 

149 

5 

15 

216 

22 

149 

6 

16 

216 

23 

149 

7 

17 

216 

24 

149 

8 

103 

18 

216 

25 

149 

9 

103 

19 

216 

26 

150 

10 

20 

216 

27 

150 

11 

104 

21 

218 

28 

150 

12 

104 

22 

218 

29 

150 

13 

104 

23 

218 

14 

104 

24 

218 

15 

25 

219 

VTTT 

16 

105 

26 

219 

V 

17 

106 

27 

219 

\ 
3 

4 

i.  96 

96 

18 

201 

28 

219 

19 

201 

29 

220 

20 

201 

30 

21 

202 

31 

220 

151 
151 
151 
151 

22 

203 

32 

220 

0 

6 

7 
8 
9 

10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 

23 
24 

204 

33 

34 

221 

221 

25 
26 

205 
206 

35 
36 

222 

27 

207 

37 

222 

153 
153 
153 

65 
199 

65 

28 

207 

38 

222 

29 

207 

39 

222 

30 

207 

40 

223 

31 

207 

41 

223 

32 
33 

208 
208 

42 

224 

17 

66 

34 

208 

18 
19 

192 
ii.  82 

35 
36 

212 
212 

XI. 

20 

21 

82 
82 

37 

38 

212 
212 

1 
2 

i.  227 
157 

22 

82 

3 

23 

i.  192 

X. 

4 

24 

192 

5 

25 

192 

1 

i.  213 

6 

26 

193 

2 

7 

158 

27 

194 

3 

8 

28 

197 

4 

9 

29 

197 

5 

213 

10 

30 

197 

6 

213 

11 

160 

31 

197 

7 

213 

12 

160 

32 

198 

8 

214 

13 

160 

33 

198 

9 

14 

160 

34 

198 

10 

214 

15 

160 

ii       INDEX    TO    QUOTATIONS   FROM   THE    GOSPELS. 


XI. 

16 
17 
18 

19  i.  161 

20  ii.  87 

21  87 


22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 


XIII. 

1  i.  166 

2  166 


XII. 


1  i.  107 


2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 


107 


108 
108 
109 


110 
110 
110 

111 
111 
111 
111 
111 
111 
111 


22  ii.  40 

23  40 


24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 


40 
41 
41 
41 
42 
42 
43 
43 
45 
45 
46 
46 
46 
46 
46 
47 
47 
47 
48 
48 
49 
49 


3 
4 
5 
6 

7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 


46  i.  191 

47  191 

48  191 

49  191 

50  191 


XIV. 

10  i.  226 

11  226 


XVI. 


XVIII. 


XX. 


166 

167 

167 

167 

168 

168 

168 

169 

169 

169 

170 

170 

170 

171 

171 

171 

173 

175 

175 

175 

175 

177 

177 

177 

177 

177 

177 

177 

178 

178 

179 

180 

180 

180 

181 

181 

181 

183 

184 

184 

185 

185 

186 

186 

187 

188 

188 

188 

190 

190 

191 

209 

209 

209 

211 


12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 


227 
227 
229 
230 

230 

231 
232 
231 
235 
236 
236 
237 
237 
237 
238 
238 
238 
238 
239 
239 
240 
241 
241 


1 
2 
3 

4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 


299  9 
299  10 
299  I  11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 


299 

300 

300 

300 

300 

300 

300 

302 

302 

255 

256 

256 

256 

256 

257  I  26 

258 

2.58 

259 

259 

259 

260 

260 

261 

261 

261 


313 
315 
315 
316 
316 
316 
316 
317 
317 
327 
327 
327 
327 
328 
328 
328 
328 
329 
329 
329 
329 
329 
329 
329 
329 
329 
330 


XV. 


XIV. 

1  i.  227 

2  227 


226 
226 
226 
226 
226 
226 
226 


1  i. 

280 

2 

280 

3 

281 

4 

285 

5 

285 

6 

285 

7 

8 

285 

9 

10 

286 

11 

286 

12 

287 

13 

287 

14 

287 

15 

287 

16 

288 

17 

288 

18 

289 

19 

289 

20 

289 

21 

289 

22 

289 

23 

289 

24 

290 

25 

290 

26 

27 

291 

28 

291 

29 

291 

30 

293 

31 

293 

32 

295 

33 

296 

34 

296 

35 

296 

36 

296 

37 

297 

38 

298 

39 

298 

XVII. 

1  i.  262 

2  262 
3 
4 


XIX. 


262 
263 
263 
264 
264 
264 
267 
268 
268 
268 
268 
270 
270 
271 
271 
274 
274 
274 
275 
278 
278 
304 
304 
305 
306 


XVIII. 


1  i.  308 

2  308 


308 
309 
309 
312 
312 
313 


1  ii, 
2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 


3 
3 
181 
181 
181 
182 
183 
183 
184 
185 
185 
185 
206 
206 
207 
210 
210 
212 

213 
213 
213 
213 
214 
216 
217 
217 
217 
219 
220 


/  11 

8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 


221 

221 

221 

221 

221 

221 

221 

221 

221 

222 

224 

224 

224 

226 

226 

227 

227 

228 

228 

228 

228  1 

229 

238 

238 

238 

238 

238 

238 


XXI. 

40  ii.  286 

41  286 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 


288 
288 
288 
289 
289 


XXII. 

1  ii.  292 


XXI. 


XX. 

1  ii.  220 


220 
22] 
221 
221 
221 


1  ii 

250 

2 

250 

3 

251 

4 

251 

5 

251 

6 

252 

7 

254 

8 

254 

9 

256 

10 

2G0 

11 

260 

12 

274 

13 

274 

14 

274 

15 

278 

16 

278 

17 

18 

260 

19 

260 

20 

261 

21 

262 

22 

263 

23 

280 

24 

281 

25 

281 

26 

281 

27 

282 

28 

283 

29 

283 

30 

283 

31 

283 

32 

284 

33 

284 

34 

285 

35 

285 

36 

285 

37 

286 

38 

286 

39 

286 

2 

292 

3 

292 

4 

292 

5 

292 

6 

292 

7 

293 

8 

295 

9 

295 

10 

295 

11 

298 

12 

298 

13 

298 

14 

299 

15 

305 

16 

308 

17 

308 

18 

308 

19 

308 

20 

308 

21 

308 

22 

311 

23 

311 

24 

311 

25 

312 

26 

312 

27 

312 

28 

312 

29 

312 

30 

312 

31 

315 

32 

315 

33 

318 

34 

318 

35 

318 

36 

319 

37 

319 

38 

39 

320 

40 

320 

41 

323 

42 

323 

43 

324 

44 

324 

45 

324 

46 

327 

XXIII. 


1  ii.  335 

2  335 


335 
335 
335 
335 

336 
336 
336 


INDEX    TO    QUOTATIONS    FROM    THE    GOSPELS,     iii 


XXIII. 

11 

12 

13  ii.  338 

14 


XXIV. 


XXV. 


XXV. 


15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 


339 
339 
340 
340 
340 
340 
340 
340 
340 
340 
340 
341 
341 
341 
341 
341 
341 
341 
341 
342 
342 
343 
258 
258 
258 


XXIV. 

1  iii. 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 
10 
11 


12  iii. 

13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 


1  iii, 

2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 


XXVI. 

1  iii.  65 


2  65 

3  65 

4  65 

5  65 

6  ii.  246 
246 
247 
247 


40  ,  45  iii.  60 

40  ]  46    61 

40 

40 

40 

40 

40 

40 

40 

41 

41 

41 

41 

41 

42 

42 

42 

42 

43 

43 

44 

44 

44 

44 

44 

44 

44 

44 

44 

45 

46 

48 

48 


XXVI. 

40  iii.  183 

41  183 


8 

9 
10 
11 
12 
13 

14  iii. 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 


247 

247 

247 

247 

66 

66 

66 

81 

82 

84 

87 

87 

87 

206 


48  29 
48  '  30 

48  31 

49  32 
49  I  33 
49  34 
49  35 
55  I  36 
55  37 
55  '  38 
60  39 


90 
90 
92 
177 

177 
178 
178 
179 
179 
179 

180 
180 


42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 


183 
183 
183 
185 
186 
186 
186 
187 
187 
190 
191 
191 
192 
192 
192 
197 
197 
197 
198 
198 
198 
198 
199 
200 
200 
201 
201 
201 
202 
202 
203 
203 
203 
204 


XXVII. 

5  iii.  206 

6  206 


XXVII. 

1  iii.  205 

2  205 

3  206 

4  206 


7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 


207 

207 

210 

210 

215 

217 

217 

218 

220 

220 

220 

220 

221 

221 

221 

221 

222 

222 

223 

223 

223 

223 

223 

223 

227 

227 

229 

229 

230 

232 

232 

234 

235 

235 

235 

236 

235 

236 

240 

241 

242 

243 


XXVII. 

49  iii.  243 

50  244 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 


245 
246 
246 
247 
250 
250 
254 
254 
255 
256 
256 
256 
256 
257 
257 
258 


XXVIII. 

1  iii.  258 

2  266 
266 
266 
273 
273 
273 
273 
274 
274 
276 
277 
277 
277 
277 
303 
310 
311 
311 
317 


MARK. 


1  i.  43 

2  31 
3 

4 
6 
6 

7 


9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 


30 
32 
31 
34 

38 
39 
39 
49 
49 
58 
60 
112 
112 
112 
112 


21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 


II. 

i.  99 
99 
99 
99 

100 
100 
100 
101 
101 
101 
103 


II. 

13  i.  103 

14  112 


103 
104 

104 
104 
105 


107 
107 
108 
108 
109 
109 


III. 


III.     1 

2 

3 

4  i. 

110 

5 

110 

6 

111 

7 

113 

8 

113 

9 

113 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

112 

15 

112 

16 

17 

112 

18 

19 

20  ii 

40 

21 

40 

22 

m 

ii. 

40 

23 

41 

24 

41 

25 

26 

41 

27 

42 

28 

43 

29 

43 

30 

43 

31 

i. 

191 

32 

33 

34 

191 

35 

IV. 

1 

i. 

166 

2 

167 

3 

167 

rv. 

4  i.  167 


5 

168 

6 

168 

7 

168 

8 

168 

9 

168 

10 

169 

11 

169 

12 

170 

13 

171 

14 

173 

15 

174 

16 

175 

17 

176 

18 

19 

20 

21 

189 

22 

189 

23 

190 

iv      INDEX    TO    QUOTATIONS    FROM   THE    GOSPELS. 


IV. 


24  i. 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 


190 
190 


180 
180 
178 
178 
178 
184 
184 
191 
191 
192 
192 
193 
195 
194 


1  i.  195 


2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 


196 
196 
196 
196 
196 
196 
196 
197 
197 
197 
197 
198 
198 
198 
198 
199 
199 
199 
199 
201 
201 
201 
201 
201 
201 
201 
202 
202 
202 
202 
202 
202 
203 
204 
204 
204 
204 
204 
204 
205 
205 
205 


VI. 

1  i.  208 

2  208 

3  209 

4  211 


VI. 

5  i.  211 

6  212 

7  213 

8  214 
214 
215 
215 
225 
225 
227 
227 
227 
226 
226 
226 
226 
226 
226 
226 
226 
226 
226 
226 
226 
226 
227 
228 
228 
228 
230 
230 
230 
230 
230 
231 
231 
232 

232 
231 
235 
236 
237 
237 
237 
237 
239 
239 
240 
240 
240 
240 


VII. 

17  i.  288 

18  288 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 


288 
288 
289 
289 
289 
289 
290 
290 
290 
291 
291 
291 
291 
293 
293 
294 
294 
294 
294 


VIII. 

1  i.  295 

2  295 


VII. 

1  i.  279 

2  279 


280 
280 
280 
280 
280 
280 
281 
281 
281 


286 
286 


295 
296 
296 
296 
296 
296 
298 
298 
298 
299 
300 
300 
300 
300 
301 
301 
301 
301 
302 
302 
303 
303 
303 
303 
255 
256 
256 
258 
259 
259 
259 
260 
260 


261 


IX. 


1  ii 

2 
3 

4 


263  i  25 

264  :  26 
267 


267 
268 
268 
268 
270 
270 
270 
270 
271 
271 
272 
272 
272 


272  ;  41 

272  I  42 

273  !  43 

274  :  44 
274  '  45 
274  46 

47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 


•Zto 
278 
278 
278 
304 
308 
308 
308 
309 
310 
311 
311 
311 
311 
313 


313 


X. 

ii.  214 

216 
217 
217 
219 
219 
220 
223 
224 
924 
227 
227 
227 
227 
227 
227 
228 
228 
228 
229 
229 
237 
237 
237 
237 
237 
237 
237 


/ 
8 

s|i? 

314  {., 
314  13 

14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 


IX. 

1  i.  261 

2  262 

3  262 

4  262 

5  263 

6  263 


3 
181 

183  -^ 
183 
182 
182 


182  -; 
182  !  20 
186  '  ^2 

186  :  28 
206  29 
206  I  '^0 

206  1 : 1 

207  ,  :^2 

210  '^'^ 
210 
212 
213 

213   1 
2 

213  3 

214  4 


XI. 

ii.  251 

251 

252 
252 
252 
252 
254 
256 
256 
260 
260 
260 
260 
274 
274 
274 
279 
279 
261 
261 
262 
262 
263 
264 
273 
280 
280 
281 
281 
281 
281 
282 


XII. 

6  ii.  285 

6  286 

7  286 

8  286 
286 
288 
288 
289 
305 
308 
308 
308 
308 
311 
311 
312 
312 
312 
312 
312 
313 
315 
315 
318 
319 
319 
320 
320 
320 
320 
328 
328 
328 
335 
335 
335 
344 
344 
345 
345 


XIII. 

1  iii. 

2 


XII. 

ii.  284 

284 
285 
285 


XIII. 

29 

30  iii.  30 

31  34 


34 
37 
37 
37 
37 
38 


XIV. 


1  ii: 

.  65 

2 

65 

3  ii. 

246 

4 

247 

5 

247 

6 

247 

7 

247 

8 

247 

9 

10  iii.  66 

11 

66 

12 

81 

13 

81 

14 

82 

15 

84 

16 

84 

17 

84 

18 

87 

19 

87 

20 

87 

21 

87 

22 

89 

23 

91 

24 

91 

25 

92 

26 

27 

28 

178 

29 

179 

30 

179 

31 

179 

32 

180 

33 

180 

34 

180 

35 

180 

36 

181 

37 

183 

38 

183 

39 

183 

40 

183 

41 

185 

42 

186 

43 

186 

44 

187 

45 

187 

46 

190 

47 

190 

48 

192 

49 

192 

50 

193 

51 

193 

52 

193 

53 

197 

54 

197 

55 

197 

56 

198 

57 

198 

58 

198 

59 

198 

INDEX    TO    QUOTATIONS   FROM    THE    GOSPELS. 


XIV. 

60  iii.  198 

61  198 


62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 


199 
200 
200 
201 
201 
201 
202 
202 
203 
203 


XIV. 

72  iii.  203 

XV. 

1  iu.  20o 


215 
217 
217 
218 
220 
220 
220 
220 


XV. 

10  iii.  220 

11  221 
221 
222 
222 
223 
223 
223 
223 
223 
227 
227 


XV. 

22  iii.  228 

23  228 


XV. 

34  iii.  241 

3.5   242 


230 
230 
232 
234 
235 
235 
235 
235 
235 
240 


243 
244 
245 
247 
250 
250 
253 
253 
255 
255 


46  iii 

r. 

255 

47 

256 

XVI. 

liii 

258 

2 

259 

3 

265 

4 

265 

5 

272 

6 

273 

7 

273 

8 

273 

XVI. 


9  iii 

.271 

10 

274 

11 

274 

12 

277 

13 

288 

14 

297 

15 

318 

16 

318 

17 

326 

18 

327 

19 

333 

20 

333 

LUKE. 


8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
60 
61 
52 


3 

53 

3 

54 

3 

55 

4 

56 

4 

57 

4 

68 

4 

59 

4 

60 

4 

61 

4 

62 

4 

63 

4 

64 

4 

65 

4 

66 

5 

67 

5 

68 

5 

69 

5 

70 

5 

71 

6 

72 

6 

73 

6 

74 

6 

75 

6 

76 

6 

77 

6 

78 

6 

79 

6 

80 

II. 


9  12 
9  13 


10 

14 

10 

15 

10 

16 

10 

17 

10 

18 

10 

19 

10 

20 

II. 

21  i. 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

44 

45 

46 

47 

48 

49 

50 

51 

52 


III. 


18  17 
18  :  18 

18  1  19 

19  20 


19 

21 

19 

22 

19 

23 

19 

24 

19 

25 

19 

26 

19 

27 

IV. 


39  32 


19  28 

19  1  29 

20  !  30 


III. 


IV. 


49 
49 
49 
49 
51 
61 
51 
52 
50 
60 
50 
60 
53 
58 
60 
60 
60 
60 

60  23 

61  124 
61  I  25 
61  126 
61  [27 
61  28 
61  29 
61  30 


98 
99 
99 
99 
99 

100 


103 
103 
103 
103 
103 
104 


31 

32 

33  i.  104 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 


105 


106 


VI. 

40  i.  145 

41  145 


145 

148 
148 
149 
149 
149 
149 


VI. 


1  i. 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 


109 
109 
109 
110 

111 
111 
111 
112 
112 
112 
113 
114 
114 
118 
118 
119 

118 
118 
120 
130 
130 

129 
130 
130 
131 
131 
130 
131 
143 
144 
144 


VII. 

1  i.  151 

2  151 


3 

4 
6 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 


161 
151 
151 
151 
152 
152 
153 
153 
154 
154 
154 
154 
154 
154 
164 
157 
157 
157 
158 
158 
158 
158 
159 
159 
159 
159 
159 
161 
161 
161 
161 
161 
161 
162 
162 
162 


vi     INDEX    TO    QUOTATIONS   FROM   THE    GOSPELS. 


VII. 

39  i.  162 

40  162 


41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 


162 
162 
163 
163 
163 
163 
163 
165 
165 
165 


2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

S 

9 

10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 

53 


IX. 

1  i.  213 

2 

3 

4 
5 
6 

7 


VIII. 

1  i.  165 
166 
166 
166 
167 
168 
168 
168 
169 
169 
172 


175 
176 
176 
189 
190 
191 

191 
191 
192 
192 
194 
196 
196 
196 
196 
197 
197 
197 
198 
198 
198 
198 
199 
199 
199 
201 
201 
201 
201 
202 
202 
202 
202 

204 
204 


204 
205 
205 
205 


9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 

51  ii. 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 


214 
215 
215 
225 
227 
227 
227 
227 
230 
230 
230 
231 
231 
232 
232 
256 
256 
256 
258 
259 
260 

261 

261 

262 

262 

262 

262 

263 

263 

263 

263 

264 

270 

270 

271 

271 

271 

274 

278 

278 

278 

307 

308 

309 

310 

311 

80 

81 

81 

81 

81 

81 

81 

81 

82 

82 

82 

83 


7  ii.  85 

8  85 


86 


89 
89 
90 
91 
91 
91 
93 
93 
97 
97 
97 
97 
98 
98 
98 
98 
98 
98 
99 
99 
99 
100 
100 
100 
101 
101 


XI. 

33  ii.  51 

34  51 
52 
52 
52 
53 
53 
53 
53 
54 
54 
55 
55 
55 
56 
67 
57 
57 
57 
58 
59 
59 


X. 

1  ii. 

2 
3 
4 
5 
6 


XI. 

1  ii.  136 

2  136 

3  137 

4  137 

5  138 

6  138 

7  138 

8  138 
139 
139 
139 
139 
139 

40 
40 
40 
41 
41 


XII. 

47  ii.  71 

48  72 

49  i.  221 

50  221 

51  222 

52  222 

53  222 

54  ii.  74 

55  74 


XIV. 

16  ii.  153 

17  153 


XII. 

1  ii.  59 

2  i.  219 

3  219 


4  219 

5  219 

6  220 

7  220 

8  221 

9  221 
10  ii.  60 
11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24  i.  139 

25 

26    139 

27 

28 

29    140 

30 

31 

32  ii.  62 

33  62 


XIII. 


1  ii.  75 

2  76 


3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 

18  i.  179 

19  179 


154 
154 
154 
154 
154 
154 
154 
155 
155 
155 
155 
155 
156 
156 
156 
156 
157 
157 


XV. 


1  ii.  157 

2  157 


179 
179 


22  ii.  142 

23  142 


142 
142 
144 
144 
144 
145 
145 
146 
146 
146 
258 
258 


XIV. 


1  ii.  147 

2  147 


3 
4 
5 

!  8 
I  9 
:  10 
1  11 
!  12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 


158 
158 
158 
158 
158 
158 
159 
159 
162 
162 
163 
163 
163 
163 
163 
164 
164 
164 
164 
165 
165 
165 
165 
165 
166 
166 
166 
166 
166 
106 


XVI. 

12  ii. 

13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 


L77 
178 
180 
180 
180 
ISO 
180 
186 
186 
186 
186 
187 


189 
189 


189 


XVII. 


1  ii.  194 

2  194 


147 
148 
148 
148 
148 
148 
149 
149 
150 
151 
151 
151 
153 


XVI. 

1  ii.  167 

2  172 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 


173 
173 
173 
173 
173 
174 
175 
176 
177 


194 
194 
195 
195 
196 
196 
197 
197 
198 
198 
198 
198 
198 
198 
198 
198 
198 
199 
199 
199 
199 
199 
200 
200 
200 
200 
200 
200 
200 
200 
200 
201 
201 
201 
201 


XVIII. 


1  ii.  201 

2  201 


201 
201 
201 
201 


INDEX    TO    QUOTATIONS   FROM   THE    GOSPELS,     vii 


XVIII. 


XIX. 


XX. 


XXI. 


XXII. 


XXIII. 


XXIV. 


7  ii. 

202 

i::  ii. 

242 

14  ii. 

28(i 

10  iii. 

8 

27  iii 

120 

4  iii 

218  ! 

liii 

259 

8 

202 

14 

242  , 

15 

286 

17 

8 

28 

126 

5 

218 

2 

266 

9 

203 

15 

243  ' 

16 

286 

18 

8 

29 

126 

6 

218  1 

3 

273 

10 

204 

16 

243 

17 

287 

19 

8 

30 

126 

7 

218  i 

4 

273 

11 

204 

17 

243 

18 

287  1 

20 

14 

31 

127; 

8 

218  i 

5 

273 

12 

204  1 

IS 

243 

19 

289  ' 

21 

15 

32 

128 

9 

219  1 

6 

273 

13 

20  i  i 

19 

243 

20 

305 

22 

16 

33 

128 

10 

219 

7 

273 

14 

204 

20 

243 

21 

308 

23 

16 

34 

128 

11 

219 

8 

273 

15 

206 

21 

243 

22 

308 

24 

16 

35 

130 

12 

219 

9 

273 

16 

206 

22 

244 

23 

308 

25 

28 

36 

130 

13 

219 

10 

274 

17 

206 

23 

244 

24 

308 

26 

28 

37 

132 

14 

219 

11 

275 

18 

211 

24 

244 

25 

308 

27 

28 

38 

133 

15 

219 

12 

275 

19 

211 

25 

244 

26 

311 

28 

30 

39 

179 

10 

219 

13 

277 

20 

212 

26 

244 

27 

311 

29 

30 

40 

179 

17 

14 

277 

21 

213 

27 

245 

28 

311 

30 

30 

41 

180 

18 

222 

15 

277 

22 

213 

28 

250 

29 

312 

31 

30 

42 

180 

19 

222 

16 

277 

23 

213 

29 

251 

30 

312 

32 

43 

184 

20 

222 

17 

278 

24 

213 

30 

251 

31 

312 

33 

34 

44 

184 

21 

222 

IS 

278 

25 

214 

31 

251 

32 

312 

34 

36 

45 

185 

22 

222 

19 

278 

26 

216 

32 

252 

33 

312 

35 

36 

46 

185 

23 

222 

20 

278 

27 

217 

33 

252 

34 

313 

36 

37 

47 

186 

24 

223 

21 

278 

28 

217 

34 

252 

35 

313 

37 

65 

48 

187 

25 

223 

22 

278 

29 

219 

35 

252 

36 

313 

38 

65 

49 

190 

26 

227 

23 

278 

30 

36 

254 

37 

315 

50 

190 

27 

228 

24 

279 

31 

224 

37 

256 

38 

315 

51 

192 

28 

228 

25 

279 

32 

224 

38 

256 

39 

318 

xxn 

52 

192 

29 

228 

26 

279 

33 

224 

39 

257 

40 

318 

53 

192 

30 

228 

27 

279 

34 

224 

40 

257 

41 

328 

1  iii 

65 

54 

193 

31 

228 

28 

282 

35 

230 

41 

257 

42 

328 

2 

66 

55 

197 

32 

228 

29 

282 

36 

235 

42 

257 

43 

328 

3 

66 

56 

202 

33 

229 

30 

282 

37 

235 

43 

257 

44 

328 

4 

66 

57 

202 

34 

230 

31 

284 

38 

235 

44 

257 

45 

334 

5 

66 

58 

203 

35 

235 

32 

288 

39 

235 

45 

274 

46 

334 

6 

66 

59 

203 

36 

236 

33 

288 

40 

236 

46 

274 

47 

334 

7 

81 

60 

203 

37 

236 

34 

288 

41 

236 

47 

279 

8 

81 

61 

204 

38 

232 

35 

288 

42 

236 

48 

279 

9 

81 

62 

39 

236 

36 

289 

43 

236 

xyT 

10 

81 

63 

201 

40 

236 

37 

289 

■ 

Ii 

82 

64 

201 

41 

236 

38 

289 

XV 

1  ii 

.  344 

12 

84 

65 

201 

42 

236 

39 

289 

XI"V 

■ 

2 

344 

13 

84 

66 

197 

43 

239 

40 

289 

* 

1  ii 

.  280 

3 

345 

14 

84 

67 

199 

44 

241 

41 

290 

1  ii 

.  240 

•) 

280 

4 

345 

15 

84 

68 

199 

45 

245 

42 

2 

240 

3 

281 

5  iii.  1 

16 

84 

69 

199 

46 

244 

43 

3 

240 

;    4 

281 

6 

2 

;i7 

85 

70 

199 

47 

248 

44 

301 

4 

240 

5 

281 

7 

2 

118 

85 

71 

200 

48 

249 

45 

301 

5 

240 

6 

281 

8 

3 

1  19 

89 

49 

249 

46 

301 

6 

241 

7 

282 

9 

5 

1  20 

91 

50 

254 

47 

301 

7 

241 

!  .« 

282 

10 

5 

21 

124 

51 

254 

48 

302 

8 

241 

» 

284 

11 

5 

22 

124 

XXIII. 

52 

254 

49 

302 

9 

241 

10 

285 

12 

7 

23 

124 

53 

255 

50 

303 

10 

241 

!  U 

285 

13 

7 

24 

126 

1  iii  205 

54 

256 

51 

303 

11 

242 

12 

285 

14 

12 

25 

126 

2 

215 

55 

256 

52 

303 

12 

242 

13 

286 

15 

12 

26 

126 

1  3 

215 

56 

256 

53 

303 

JOHK 


1  i 

.   1 

13  i 

.  41 

25 

2 

9 

14 

41 

26 

3 

2 

15 

42 

27 

4 

2 

16 

42 

28 

5 

2 

17 

42 

29 

6 

13 

18 

43 

30 

7 

13 

19 

34 

31 

8 

13 

20 

34 

32 

9 

13 

21 

34 

33 

10 

40 

•'•> 

34 

34 

11 

40 

23 

34 

35 

12 

40 

24 

34 

36 

37  i. 

43 

38 

43 

39 

43 

40 

44 

41 

44 

42 

44 

43 

44 

44 

44 

45 

44 

46 

45 

47 

45 

48 

45 

I. 

49  i. 

45 

50 

46 

51 

46 

II. 

1  i. 

55 

2 

55 

3 

55 

4 

55 

II. 


II. 


5  i. 

55 

17  ii 

276 

6 

56 

18 

276 

7 

56 

19 

276 

8 

56 

20 

276 

9 

56 

21 

276 

10 

56 

22 

276 

11 

57 

23 

279 

12 

58 

24 

279 

13  ii. 

274 

25 

280 

14 

274 

15 

274 

16 

274 

viii   INDEX    TO    QUOTATIONS    FROM   THE    GOSPELS. 


III. 

1  ii. 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 

22  i. 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 


IV. 


11 
11 
12 
12 
12 
12 
13 
13 
13 
13 
13 
14 
14 
15 

15 

16 

17 

17 

17 

17 

67 

67 

67 

69 

70 

70  i 

70 

70 

70 

70 

71 

71 

71 

71 

72 


IV. 


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21  . 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 


72 
72 
73 
73 
73 
73 
73 
73 
73 
74 
74 
74 
74 
74 
74 
74 
74 
74 
75 
75 
75 
75 
75 
76 
76 
76 
76 
76 
77 
77 


1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 


V. 

45  i.  95 

46  95 

47  96 


VI. 


1  i.  228 

2  229 


9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 


229 
229 
229 
229 
229 
231 
231 
231 
232 
232 
232 
236 
236 
236 
236 
236 
237 
237 
238 
241 
242 
242 
243 
243 
243 
243 
243 
244 
244 
244 
244 
245 
245 
245 
245 
245 
247 
247 
248 
248 
248 
249 
249 
249 
250 
250 
250 
2.50 
250 
250 
250 
251 
251 
251 
251 
251 
253 
254 
2.54 
254 
254 
254 


VI. 

65  i.  254 

66  254 

67  255 
08  255 

69  255 

70  255 
71 


VII. 

1  ii. 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 


VIII. 


9 
9 

V 

9 

9 

9 

9 
10 
10 
10 
10 
19 


19 
19 
19 
21 
21 
21 
21 
21 
22 
22 
22 
22 
22 
23 
23 
23 
23 
23 
24 
24 
24 
24 
25 
25 
25 
26 
26 
26 
26 
26 
26 
26 
27 
27 
27 
27 
27 
27 
28 
28 
28 
30 
30 
30 
30 
30 
30 
31 
33 
33 
33 
34 
35 
36 
36 
36 


IX. 

12  ii.  105 

13  105 


1 

2 
3 
4 
5 

:  6 

VIII.  i  7 
8 

1  ii.  19  9 

2  19  10 

3  19  11 


IX. 

ii.  102 
102 
103 
103 
103 
104 
104 
105 
105 
105 
105 


105 
106 
106 
106 
106 
106 
HI 
111 
111 
111 
111 
111 
111 
112 
112 
112 
112 
112 
112 
112 
112 
113 
113 
113 
113 
113 
114 
114 


1  ii.  114 

2  114 


114 
114 
114 
114 
115 
115 
115 
116 
116 
116 
116 
116 
117 
117 
118 
118 
120 
120 
120 
121 
121 
121 
121 
122 
122 
122 
122 
123 
123 
123 
123 
123 
124 
124 
124 


38  ii.  124 

39  124 

40  124 

41  125 

42  125 


XI. 

1  ii.  125 

2  125 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 

10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 


XII. 

1  ii.  246 

2  246 


INDEX    TO    QUOTATIONS    FROM    THE    GOiU'ELki.      ix 


XII. 


XIII. 


XIV. 


XVI. 


XVII. 


XIX. 


XX. 


3  ii 

246 

[  3iii.  117 

15  iii.  138 

3  iii.  155 

19 

iii.  176 

1  iii.  224 

8  iii.  267 

4 

247 

4 

117 

16 

139 

4 

156 

|20 

176   2 

224 

9 

268 

5 

247 

5 

117 

17 

140 

1  5 

157 

21 

176   3 

224 

10 

268 

6 

247 

1  6 

118 

18 

141 

6 

157 

j22 

176 

4 

224 

11 

268 

7 

247 

7 

118 

19 

142 

( 

157 

23 

177 

5 

224 

12 

268 

8 

247 

!  « 

118 

20 

142 

8 

157 

24 

177 

6 

224 

13 

268 

9 

250 

9 

lis 

21 

142 

1  9 

158 

;  25 

177 

7 

224 

14 

268 

10 

250 

10 

118 

22 

142 

;io 

158 

[26 

177 

8 

224 

15 

269 

11 

250 

11 

119 

23 

142 

111 

158 

9 

224  16 

269 

12 

254 

12 

119 

24 

142 

12 

100 

j 

10 

225  17 

269 

13 

255 

13 

119 

i  25 

142 

13 

161 

11 

225 

18 

274 

14 

255 

14 

119 

26 

143 

14 

161 

'  XVIII. 

12 

225 

19 

290 

1.5 

255 

15 

119 

i  27 

144 

15 

161 

13 

226 

20 

290 

16 

255 

16 

119 

'  28 

144 

16 

162 

1 

iii.  179 

14 

226 

21 

291 

17 

255 

17 

120 

29 

145 

17 

162 

2 

179 

15 

227 

22 

291 

18 

255 

18 

122 

30 

145 

18 

162 

3 

186 

16 

227 

23 

291 

19 

257 

19 

123 

31 

146 

19 

162 

4 

187 

17 

227 

24 

295 

20iii 

.  67 

20 

124 

20 

162 

5 

187 

18 

229 

25 

295 

21 

67 

21 

124 

21 

163 

6 

188 

19 

232 

26 

295 

22 

67 

22 

124 

xv 

22 

163 

7 

190 

20 

233 

27 

296 

23 

67 

23 

124 

A. 

23 

163 

8 

190 

21 

233 

28 

296 

24 

67 

24 

124 

liii 

.148 

24 

163 

9 

190 

92 

234 

29 

296 

25 

68 

25 

124 

2 

148 

25 

164 

10 

191 

23 

230 

30 

298 

26 

68 

26 

125 

3 

148  26 

165 

11 

191 

24 

230 

31 

298 

27 

69 

27 

125 

4 

148  27 

165 

12 

193 

25 

240 

28 

70 

28 

125 

5 

148  28 

166 

13 

194 

26 

240 

29 

70 

29 

125 

6 

148  29 

169 

14 

194 

27 

240 

30 

71 

30 

125 

7 

149 

30 

169 

15 

194 

28 

242 

XXT. 

31 

72 

31 

125 

8 

149 

31 

169 

16 

194 

29 

243 

32 

73 

32 

126 

9 

149 

32 

169 

17 

194 

30 

244 

1  iii.  304 

33 

73 

33 

128 

10 

149 

33 

170 

18 

195 

31 

250 

2 

304 

34 

73 

34 

128 

11 

150 

19 

195 

32 

250 

3 

304 

35 

74 

35 

129 

12 

150 

20 

195 

33 

250 

4 

304 

36 

75 

36 

129 

13 

151 

21 

195 

34 

250 

5 

304 

37 

75 

37 

129 

14 

151 

XVII. 

99 

195 

35 

251 

6 

304 

38 

75 

38 

129 

15 

151 

23. 

196 

36 

253 

7 

304 

39 

75 

16 

151 

liii 

.170 

24 

196 

37 

253 

8 

305 

-iO 

75 

17 

151 

2 

171 

25 

202 

38 

254 

9 

305 

41 

76 

XT'W 

18 

152 

3 

172 

26 

203 

39 

255 

10 

305 

42 

76 

j^i. 

19 

1.53 

4 

173 

27 

203 

40 

2.55  11 

305 

43 

77 

liii 

133 

20 

1.53 

5 

173 

28 

205 

41 

2-56  12 

305 

44 

77   2 

133 

21 

153 

6 

173 

29 

215 

42 

256 

13 

305 

4.5 

77   3 

134 

22 

153  1 

7 

173 

30 

215 

14 

305 

46 

77   4 

134 

23 

153 

8 

174 

31 

215 

15 

305 

47 

77 

5 

135 

24 

153 

y 

174 

32 

215 

16 

307 

48 

78 

6 

135 

25 

154 

10 

174 

33 

216 

XX. 

17 

307 

49 

78   7  ■ 

135 

26 

1.54 

11 

175 

34 

216 

IS 

307 

.30 

78   8 

135 

27 

154 

12 

175 

35 

216 

liii 

2.59  1 

19 

308 

9 

135 

13 

175 

36 

216 

2 

266 

20 

308 

10 

136 

14 

175 

37 

216; 

3 

267 

21 

308 

YTTT 

11 

136 

"VVT 

15 

175 

38 

217  j 

4 

267  ' 

22 

308 

A,!.!. 

12 

136 

A.  V 

*■• 

16 

176 

39 

220  ' 

5 

267 

23 

308 

liii. 

117  13 

137 

liii. 

155  1 

17 

176 

40 

222 

6 

267 

24 

309 

•) 

117 

14 

138 

2 

155' 

18 

176 

7 

267 

25 

310 

(      X      ) 


INDEX    TO   VAKIOUS    SUBJECTS. 


Age-diiring,    I.    89,  251,  313 :    TI.   lo, 

31,  122,  128.  212,  273;  III.  172 
Almsgiving,  II.  344—354 
Angels,   I.  8,  183,  264,  315 :    II.  313 ; 

III.  50—55 
Apostles,  I.  112,  216 
Arnold,  Matthew,  II.  110,  119,  135 
Articles  of  Keligion,  II.  58 
Athanasiiin    Creed,  I.    153,    221 ;     III. 

167 
Baptism,  1.32,  273,  322;  II.  18,  207; 

III.  313—315 
Blasphemy,  II.  43  ;  III.  249 
Church,    I.    187,     257,    316—327;    II. 

230 
Coming,  III.  32,  33,  36,  47 
Common   Tradition,  I.    106,  114,    167, 

172,  241,  277,  301 ;  II.  282,  289 
Confirmation,  II.  208 
Demons,   I.  63,    182,200.  273;    II.  49. 

90 
Discdplcs,  I.  121,  129,  260:  II.  62,  83, 
117, 156,  167—172,  176,  179,  215,  231, 
271,  296,  307;  II.  311,  336—338  ;  III. 
6,  7,  49,   56—64,  68,  121,   150,   300, 
312,  317,  321—326 
Emulation,  II.  205 
Faith,  I.  203,  207,211,  274;  II.  195 
Fasting,  I.  105 

Forgiveness,     I.    100—102,    134,     135, 
163,    328—330;    II.    44,     264;    III. 
292—294 
Gehenna,  I.  220,  313 ;  II.  339 
Glory,  III.  280 
God,  I.  75,  155,  156 ;  II.  316 
Hell.     See  Gehenna. 
Holy,  I.  8,  40  ;  II.  91 
Holy   Spirit,   II.    8,    12,   91,  140,  328, 

330;  in.  13,  141,  143,  291 
In  my  name,  I.  310,  327  ;   III.  4,   163, 

313 
Inspiration,  I.,  3,  12,  53,  56,  78,  232, 
237,  281,  308;  II.  240,  321,  330—334 


Jehovali,  II.  324—327 

Jews,  II.  3,  106—111,  250,  278 

Last  day,  I.  247,251;  II.  127 

Lord's  Prayer,  III.  78 

Lord's  Supper,  I.   225,  252  ;   III.  84— 

116 
Miracles,  I.  56—58,  193—195,  233,  239, 

274,    297,    306  ;    II.    236,   261  ;    III. 

298,  326 
Mother  of  Jesus,  I.  17,  209;  II.  1,  50 
Only-begotten,  I.  42  ;  II.  17 
Parables,  II.  160—162  ;  III.  42 
Political  Economy,  II.  65 — 72 
Politics,  III.  257" 
Prayer,  I.  133 ;  II.  55,  137—139,  263 

III.  17—25 
Preaching,  II.  37,  56,  101,  348—352 
Prophecies,  I.  26,  66 
Kepentanrc,  III.  302 
Eesurrection,  I.  91 ;  II.  127,  133,  151, 

191,  277,  312—318  ;  III.  8—10,  247 
Revisers,  I.  35 

Righteousness,  II.  300—305 ;  III.  159 
Sabbath,  III.  261—265 
Salvation,  I.  174;    II.  145,  223;    III. 

II,  58,  182,  254,  295,  319—326 
Salvation  Army,  II.  256;  III.  315 
Scripture-reading,  II.  34 

Son  of  God,  L  40,  246,  255;  IL  330; 

III.  249 

Son  of  man,  I.  101,  109,  120,  161,  21S, 

255 ;  II.  64 
Spirit,  III.  140 
Spiritual  body,  III.  285 
Temptation,  I.  49 
Tongues,  III.  327—332 
Trinity,  III.  167 
Vengeance,  II.  202 
War,  II.  272,  298,  305 
Word,  I.  1,  42 
World,  III.  3 
Yoke.  II.  94—96 


INDEX    TO    MIRACLES. 


PACK 

PAOB 

Healing  of  demoniac 

l.lj-.i 

Healing  of  ten  lepers 

II.  198 

,,            Simon's  motlier-iii- 

„            two  blind  men  .     . 

230 

law          .         .     . 

65 

„             Malchus'  ear . 

III.  192 

,,            nobleman's  son 

82 

Casting  out  of  dumb  and  deaf 

,,             infirm  man 

84 

spii-it    . 

1.273 

,,            leper 

,.            palsied  man 

96 

,,         ,,      demons      into 

99 

swine   . 

198 

,,             withered  liaiid 

109 

Raising  of  widow's  sou 

154 

„            centurion's  servant 

1.51 

„           Lazarus  . 

II.  125 

,,             demoniac 

196 

Turning  water  into  wine     .     . 

I.  55 

Jairus"  daiigliter 

201 

1  )raught  of  fishes     . 

68 

,,             a  woman 

201 

J, 

III.  304 

..            two  blind  men 

206 

Multiplication   of    luuves   and 

,.             a  Gentile  woman '> 

fishes 

I.  229 

daughter         .     . 

289 

* 

295 

,,             (leaf,  stuttering  ma  11 

29;^ 

The  fish  and  the  stater    . 

306 

„             blind  man .         .     . 

;3o;j 

Stilling  of  the  storm  .         .     . 

193 

deformed  woman    . 

I  [.  78 

Walking  on  the  sea 

237 

man  born  blind 

102 

Cursing  of  the  tig-tree         .     . 

II.  260 

man  witli  dropsx    . 

147 

(  Xli  ) 


INDEX    TO    PARABLES. 


PAGE 

Marriage  and  fasting        .         .  I.  lO-l 

Old  and  new  cloth       .         .  105 

Wine  and  bottles     .         .         .  106 

Old  and  new  wine        .         .  106 

City  on  a  hill  ....  122 

BUnd  guides  of  the  blind    .     .  144 

Good  and  bad  trees  ...  148 

,,             „     treasure         .     .  148 

Wise  and  foolish  builders        .  149 

Two  debtors        ....  162 

The  sower  and  the  seed  .         .  167 

Good  and  bad  seed       ...  177 

Mustard  seed  .         .         ■         ■  178 

Leaven 1"9 

Growing  seed  ....  180 

Hidden  treasure .         .         .     .  185 

Merchant  seeking  pearls  .  186 

Drag-net 187 

Lamp  under  a  bushel      .         .   122,  189 

Householder  and  his  treasures  190 

Shepherdless  sheep.         .         .  212 

H  arvest  and  labourers        .     .  212 

Children  and  Jogs  ...  290 

Leaven  of  i'harisees  and  Ikrud  .'500 

Lost  sheep        ....  ;516 

Two  debtors        .                  .     •  328 

Divided  kingdom,  city  or  house  II.  41 

The  lighted  lamp        .         .     .  51 

The  rich  fool  ....  61 

Servants  watching               .     .  62 

Unwatchful  householder          .  64 

The  faithful  steward  ...  6o 

The  unfaithful  servant    .  70 

Cloud  and  wind  ....  74 

The  slaughtered  Galihi'uns      .  75 

The  tower  in  Siloam  ...  76 

The  barren  tig  tree  ...  77 

The  dead 82 

The  ploughman       ...  83 

Harvest  labourers       ...  8i 


The  wounded  traveller    . 
Door,  shepherd,  sheep,  thieves. 

and  robbers. 
Shepherd  and  hireling 
The  friends  and  the  traveller 
The  narrow  door 
Seekers  of  chief  seats  . 
The  great  supper 
Tlie  builder  of  a  tower 
The  king  going  to  war     . 
Savourless  salt    . 

The  lost  sheep . 

,,      ,,    coin 
The  father  and  his  sons  . 
The  rich  man  and  his  steward 

„         ,,  Lazarus 

The  servant  and  his  master 
The  unjust  judge  . 
Tlie  Pharisee  and  the  publican 
The  camel  and  the  needle's  c^'e 
The    householder     and      the 

labourers 
Tlie  cup  and  the  baptism 
The  nobleman  and  his  king 

dom      .... 
The  withered  tig-tree 
The  two  sons  . 
The   vineyard    and    the   lius 

baudmeu. 
The  roj-al  marriage 
Gnat  and  camel  . 
The  budding  trees  . 
The  watchman   . 
The  ten  virgins 
The  talents 

The  sheep  and  the  goats . 
Viue,     husbandman    and 

branches 
Tile  green  tree  and  the  dry 


PAGE 

IL  98 

114 

116 

138 

143 

148 

53 

155 

156 

I.  121 

IL    57 

IL  158 

158 

162 

172 

186 

197 

I'Ol 

:-05 

214 

220 
227 

242 
260 
283 

284 

292 

340 

III.  30 

37 

40 

42 

48 

148 
228 


BR.iDBrUY     AONEW,    &    CO.    LD.,    PRINTERS,    WHITEFRI.VRS 


BS2555.K54V.2 

The  King  and  the  kingdom  :  a  study  of 

Princeton  Theological  Seminary-Speer  Library 


1    1012  00049  6861 


mm 


5,uHi   s^),'f^\'ifi 
)    M  IJ   11,  V 


